Missing the point

I'm making general comments about Christian publishing. And I might as well just get into it, because for the most part, if you don't identify the problems, you can't identify the solutions.

The greatest problem with religion in general, is our inability to handle the risks of freedom. And so, mankind has a need to codify and define. If you metaphorically see that God wants a relationship with mankind like should be between two people in love, then you don't want to stifle it, and make it predictable, and fall into a rigid system of coffee at 7, a hug, out the door. In doing this, things become stale. People do things without knowing why they are doing them, and eventually you have two people who aren't communicating, but say nothing is wrong because they still have coffee at 7.

I'm going to use Tolkien's reference to the problem of the Elves. They loved the world as it was, and feared change. And so, in their attempts to preserve the world, they embalmed it. Obviously, you embalm what isn't living so that it has the appearance of looking alive. The use of the "rings" was their attempt to gain a power to keep the world as they remembered it and wanted it to stay. Well, the saddest state of affairs, is that this part of human nature has been to Embalm, rather than to risk living.

And churches do this, and eventually, you have a ton of people doing a ton of things, not knowing why, and you have these arbitrary reasons, "Because it is right to kneel before you sit", "Why?" "We've always done that..." "What if I have arthritis?" "Wear knee pads".

Now as relates to publishing. I think things have to be fresh, and not according to someone's dictated formula. But people like the safety of formulas. And the problem is the same with churches that fall to Archetypical thinking. Stagnant ideas, unflexible. People who can't heal on the Sabbath. Books have to have redundant themes, and can't be out of the box, because out of the box is threatening.

When Jesus told a Parable, it was a story about life. The parable of the Prodigal Son does not mention the word "God" once. It does not mention "Scripture" once. It does not say the word "Pray" or speak of religious observances. And yet, people feel compelled to say everything they say in "Religious speak." If Jesus had published this, and someone read it, they might wonder if it was spiritual at all, because it can be interpreted as a story about a father loving his son. "Well, you didn't say the word Jesus in the story...can't be too spiritual in my opinion...hrump."

I bought a Christian fantasy recently, and it was worse than trudging through mud. And the company that promoted it thought it was a big deal? Didn't they bother to read it, and realize that a certain standard of writing is necessary at minimum?

Look at the Book of Esther, rarely a reference to God in the book. Yet, it is one of the greatest stories ever told.

My point is that there are countless great stories out there, and it is important to realize we have freedom to express ourselves in ways honestly, without trying to sound like pre-packaged autobots.

Look at the Song of Solomon. Metaphorically it is very deep. However, on the surface it is about two people who are passionate about desiring each other. "Your breasts are like...two towers..." (LOTR anyone). They are into each other's bodies. And yet, there is this stiffling safety net that I think stiffles God given creativity.

In one of the poems I wrote in the poetry thread, I referred to Dark Thoughts. Well, so did David, "My sins are more than the hairs of my head...I have gone down to the pit (grave)...etc.

"Into cold dirt I crawled, hand digging, sinking deeper
Crushed, my body was sprawled, a table set for the creeper

Lower my bent form had fallen, worming inside my own grave
Darkness had come as my covering, and silence was my narrow cave

But to darkness I had no attraction, no lust, no lure, no devotion
Lost, lone sailor through storms drifting, in depths of deaths ocean

Within, no satisfaction gained, my desire was to crawl back above
But death was already within, for I had never known love

Tempests and gloom, darkness and doom, I curse at your forbidden disguise
Death says, "Come peace, comfort, and hope," but now I see your empty lies..."

It seems morbid, even Gothic. But it is simply historical about once having a self-destructive bent, hopelessness. And it can't be said kindly, "Well, I was really sad..." because the only way to plunge the reader into where your heart was, is through strong metaphors.

The point of it was that in feeling suicidal, which I was at that time I was depicting, I had to come to realize that death was not an answer. It was not my friend. It was a cold liar, and I had to look elsewhere for a solution. And actually, take the risk of living life, despite hardships.

Hopefully writers, agents, and at least some publishers will get that brutal honesty, which is ugly, "spilling out his entrails"- is not unspiritual.

Wow, quite a bit to ponder here.

Obviously, I think that there are a number of things to think about. But as a whole, I think it is important to ponder what is spiritual and unspiritual, and this is where people tend to get hung up in a circle the wagons mentality.

I like C.S.Lewis, portrayal of Aslan being a Dangerous Lion, and not a Safe Lion. Jesus upset religious people, much more than he did what would be considered non-religious people; and I think the same would happen today. Why? Because religion has its Archetypes- or "correct think", where people tend to accept too many things without thinking them through.

Life isn't a safe place. Forget Genre, and in general, if you speak your mind, someone somewhere is going to judge you. And I think the mistake of the industry is to be "Safe". In being safe, I think the net result is the same as being spiritually "Lukewarm" or indifferent. I.e it makes you want to vomit, because it makes God want to vomit (Hey, that's Jesus way of putting it- Revelation three in case any are wondering)

Intellectual honesty has been replaced by needless prudishness in some instances. "Dung and Mire", were not nice ways of saying what is now considered a four letter word. In effect, Paul says, "We are viewed as excriment..." by some.

They were intellectually honest, ancient ways of saying what is now considered an expletive. How is being honest considered now unspeakable?

When Elijah took on the prophets of Baal, the litteral translation of his insult was, "Is your god out excrimenting...is that why he can't help you..."

This is important to say, because I think the net effect is that when you sugar coat thinking, you stop being a real person. And so, then you get this worldview of Christians being uninteresting bumpkins, instead of real people with real passions, who have real sex, and have real faults. Who ponder real divorce when things are horridly tough, and who ponder quitting, who like Frodo, aren't He-Man prototypes, the Christian Wonder-Man. In reality, we have to wrestle day by day to overcome desires that are ugly. And if we can't admit we wrestle with the same desires as everyone else, then where is the virtue in overcoming? There is none. If by nature I had no desire to dive in head first in a buffet table, then I am not overcoming my desire to be a glutton?

Obviously, I think the Christian Entertainment industry as a whole has failed to be real, and has thought "Safe-speak" and has become neither hot or cold, but lukewarm. I'm saying that I'd rather be shaken in my boots by honesty, then left feeling like I've just had a sacarine I.V. and read a story about plastic people I can't relate to.

Again, I must admit that there could be wonderful exceptions. But I've just picked up too many books I've wanted to put down after a few pages.

Shwebb said:

I hate to say this--and I'm not sure I'm right, but I'll throw it out there: sometimes I think that Christian readers (some of them) want to be reassured they are doing it right and getting lulled to sleep rather than being awakened to fresh ways of thinking and acting under their religious beliefs.

Yeah, Jesus was a radical! But He did it with love. The folks I see on TV decrying things in our society are not showing love and compassion, inasmuch as I've seen. Why WOULD anyone want to be a Christian? Our religion is associated with legalism, money fraud, hate, intolerance. (I'd sooner do business with an honest athiest than someone who advertises his/her business as a "Christian business." That's a real red light for me.)

Where is the joy of being a Christian being shown? There's another reason people are supposed to be drawn to Jesus. In my own life, having been raised in a Christian household, I didn't even discover that until, actually, just a few years ago.

Click to expand...

You make valid points. I have to say, I have seen extremes, and that is really confusing to people who are wondering what this is all about. It confused me.

Unlike you, I grew up in a non-religious household, was an athiest, and so, my experiences were much different. I guess you might say, I was a first generation Christian in my family. By contrast, my brother chose paganism.

But overall, I think growing up without Christian Archetypes was good for me. I'll explain what I mean. There is a wide gap between who Jesus was, and what Jesus taught, and what people recognize as Christianity. The term "Archetype" is used in various ways. But primarily, it has to do with "collective think", and often on a subconscious level.

For instance, "Slavery" was a powerful archetype in the south at one time. Some churches might have rejected it, and history shows that many Christian leaders stood against it. But many did not, and simply embraced the Archetype, without question.

Jesus, by the way, was against "Archetypes". And he constantly offended people by challenging them. In a sense, "Nationalism" was and will always be an archetype in humanity. When Jesus spoke of inclusiveness, or others who were not of his nationality, being invited into the kingdom of God, it was a stumblingblock, even to his own disciples who were all Jewish, and taught to view Gentiles in a specific way.

In the book of Acts, God gives Peter the same Vision over and over again, to get the point across that God cares about Gentiles, and this wasn't to be a "Country Club". And obviously "Go into the Highways and Byways..." was Jesus saying, "Anyone Anywhere" which was offensive to those who felt it was an exclusive club.

Archetypes are powerful things, and can seem inoccuous, such as, "You can't go to church without a tailored suit and tie", to, "White's only." But in general, Archetypical thinking places people into bondage, and drives people away, and misrepresents who God is to the world. Because if I cannot afford a tie and want to come to find God, someone can put up a wall, "Go away inferior being...you do not measure up to my standard"

I dislike Archetypical thinking in books, because subconsciously, they promote "This is the way a Christian thinks...etc."

So if in a book, the Christian always tells the truth, and everyone else lies, that is intellectually dishonest, and offensive and a stumbling block. Peter lied multiple times. "I don't know him." Paul told churches to "stop lieing and tell the truth..."

Well, it's vulnerable and a risk to show the world we are imperfect people who do dumb things, and some of us are screw-ups. But it is honest. And honestly is always the best place to start.

So, I want a story where the Christian lies, and not to demean them, but simply because pressures in life do cause people to stumble. Hopefully someone will read this and get it. But promoting myths only hurts people, in and out of the church. Real hurting people inside the church can't admit what they struggle with, and people outside say, "You aren't real." Eitherway, people hurt.

But, again, I have seen some of the most loving people and giving people. I think tv tends to misrepresent things. And unfortunately, if people have had experiences with a terribly archetypal church, they can have a very skewed view of what Christ taught, and worse yet, who God is.

If you listen to many non-Christians give their definition of God, you would think they were speaking of the very God described in the story of the prodigal son. In otherwords, they intuit that God loves them and wants them. However, all the Christian Archetypes have gotten in the way, and so they also are hurt by this. Jesus was so approacheable, that it was the religious people who were offended by him, because "He is a friend of sinners and publicans..." And in fact, this precipitated him telling the story of the prodigal son, where the older brother (religion) didn't want the younger brother back home, and he was just as lost at home as his brother was in the world.

In other words, everyday people liked Jesus, and realized he liked them back. He was the kind of guy who went to the neighborhood picnic.

Does this come across in literature written today?

Shwebb said:

Although I was raised Christian, I don't think my experiences in the church were that typical:

My parents did take us to church on occasion--to a Methodist church, but that stopped when the divorced when I was seven.

My mother took custody of my brother and me, but she, for the most part, abandoned us to ourselves while she led the "Cosmopolitan life." We were left alone most of the time, and sometimes w/out food. I wore my mom's clothes to school because I had few clothing of my own, but she had a very large wardrobe. It was during this time that I started riding the church bus on Sundays. I think I was definitely looking for something, and they were there. They weren't particularly nice to me, though--I was an intelligent, sensitive child who was obviously neglected and needy. That combination tends to throw people off.

During this time, my father remarried and found a home-based charasmatic church, and he and my stepmother became almost fanatical about God. My brother and I moved in w/ them soon after.

As their devotion grew, so did our restrictions. No more TV or radio. My stepsister and I had to wear skirts, sometimes to our ankles. Headcoverings during church were required. Some of the men in the church even punished their wives by switching them--they felt they had that right!

I accepted all these things, including the teasing I got from my classmates, because I was for whatever God wanted.

As I entered my teens, my father and stepmother became involved w/ a group that strongly recommended community life. We moved to a commune in Georgia when I was fifteen, then to one in Washington state. That Fall, I went to live in British Columbia on one by myself. (Wasn't my choice, though--I was happy in Washington. But I did come to love Canada.)

My father and stepmother had had a bad experience on the farm in Washington, so they left the church and moved back to West Virginia. I, however, ended up having a great time in Canada--but they pulled me out, anyway. I did end up going back to a farm to finish my high school education in Canton, Ohio. (THAT place was an exercise in endurance, though!)

All this to say that what I've gone through has given me a unique perspective of not only what God is, but what He ISN'T. Part of discovering Him is the carving away of our own expectations--archetypes! and replacing them with what we know is true about God.

My brother's response to these experiences (although he'd moved back in w/ my mom rather than go live on the farms) was to become a Catholic. I understand the appeal it has for him--there are things I like about Catholicism, but I could never become one.

But yeah, I think we need books that show our own sense of self and what we believe being tested! Look at Paul--he had something that God refused to take away from him. I think, personally, it was a character flaw that continued to plague him, to keep him humble.

Lastly, (and then I'll shut up! I can't believe this is so long!) we Christians need to be real w/ each other. I hear so many Christians say they don't feel as well "put together" as the other people in their churches. What fear we have, that we can't show our humanness!

Click to expand...

Well, you are being real. And this is what Christian magazines need. In a sense, the portrayals of strength are not as important as the portrayals of weakness, because in our weakness he is strongest.

We have some things in common. I came from severe dysfunction, without rehashing my complex life story. The issue of finding out who God is, is somewhat like peeling back layers. Having a wrong image of God is actually harder than having no image of God. You then have to overcome the one to get to the other.

This is where starting from scratch might have been easier? I can't say I had no image of God, ever. I knew only hypocrits and weird (in my mind) people who identified themselves as Christians. So, that clouded my understanding of the whole issue of who God is, and who Christ is. I saw God through a complex distorted filter. (Harsh, unapproacheable-someone who would never accept me-the cruel Principal in the sky) My view has changed and I realized I was wrong, but at least I didn't have to overcome what some church drilled in me all my life.

I don't think I would have been offended by people who were honest. The hypocrits lived anyway they wanted six days, confessed the seventh, and resumed sinning on the eighth as if the seventh never mattered. It was a magic formula. As long as you confess on the seventh, you can live your life anyway you wanted. To me that was hypocritical to the point of my being turned off. I figure if God and religion are not important enough to actually impact how you live, then why are you bothering being religious in the first place? It contradicted humanness. In other words, I wouldn't want my lover to spit on me six days with no intention of stopping, and saying, "I'm sorry" on the seventh, with no intention of ever stopping. If they loved me, I wanted to see it in their actions. Why should God expect anything less, unless he wasn't real or so far away he didn't care? Should God be less than a human?

Then I saw people who dressed in black suits and sang "Bringing in the sheaves" on the boardwalks in the hot sun, and this may sound weird, but I figured if anything Jesus didn't wear a black suit and have a buzz cut. And he didn't appear so culturally out of place. So I (sorry) called these people space aliens. The net effect of this is that whether they liked it or not, these two types sent messages to me. 1) God requires that you be weird. 2) Religion isn't relevent, just a rabbits foot in hopes you get good luck through religious observances.

The only way I eventually find out who Jesus was is rather bizzare. My brother brought a Bible home. Again, my brother was always into occult literature and is a pagan who dates a Shaman (Sp?) priestess. So, it is rather interesting that his choice wound up changing me.

However, at the time of what was called "The Jesus Movement", my brother started going to a Christian Coffee house with curious friends. I was the atheist, and militant at that, and wanted to cure my brother by showing him all the contradictions in the Bible. So I started reading it. And it was a "Red Letter edition". I read all of Jesus' words right off the bat, and was floored. I never ever saw wisdom like that in any man. Frankly he was not at all who I supposed he would be, and actually saw him as a disenfranchised person, rejected by the authority (Connected with me right away). I fell in love with him as a person, long before I resolved whether or not he was the Son of God in my mind.

But I came to this conclusion, most of what is called Christianity was so far off based, I wondered if any Christians had a clue who Christ was and is? And so, I set out to test the waters and test God to see whether he was the miracle working, real God as portrayed then, or if he visited and left it to itself.

At anyrate, it is sad that "Christians" can confuse the issues, which is why what we say and do is so important. Just in being intellectually honest, when Jesus addressed the Seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelations 2+3, more churches got things wrong than got them right, and I think that holds true today. And the ones who got them the rightest-new word, were in general those who were impoverished and suffering persecution. The wealthiest seemed to be the most selfish, and off base.

Shwebb said:

That's the whole point of the stories in the Bible--one of the resounding themes is that God wants us to understand that we need to admit our weaknesses and depend on Him. Not necessarily to show His superiority, but to show us His love and care and compassion for us.

And those stories--David and Goliath, Samson, Gideon, the Battle of Jericho, are all some of the most compelling and dramatic stories, too. Where did Christianity lose sight of this in our own modern literature?

Click to expand...

Exellent point. And I think this needs to be pointed out. Paul had a pride problem, and admitted it. "I'm not saying he was wrong, but in the tone of his writings, "I was a Jew of Jews...I was the Cheif of sinners..." He was even the best at suffering. Whether in zeal or messing up, he was the best. And I guess, in terms of zeal, he was in a class by himself, and he admits that he had an inclination to pride because of his many revelations. So, God permits him to have a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment him... just to keep his mega-pride in check.

Peter also wavered. Some say, "Well the Peter before and after the day of Pentecost was two different people!" What was Peter's sin? Religious pride. Even before he met Jesus, he was a zealot, which were the Jews who bared their necks to roman swords rather than allow an image of Ceasar to be carried through Jerusalem. And he is planning which throne he will get after Jesus inaugeration party. And as soon as Jesus praises him, he thinks he's a hot shot who can tell Jesus how to run a kingdom, and Jesus says, "Get thee behind me Satan (adversary)! To be more specific, Peter had a superiority issue, and that included "Nationalism" Jesus told them to go into the highways and byways, and still after many years he never left Israel, refusing to tell Gentiles the message that was for "the whole world"

Peter was still prejudiced after his big spiritual experience described in the book of Acts. God had to give him three visions just to get him to open up the church to Gentiles. And then in Galatians, Paul openly rebukes "The rock of the church" for acting insincerely in this very matter. So, these spiritual giants wrestled with their sins, and frankly, that is good to know. In fact, people tend to romantisize the entire early church as being a better church. No, it was like the church throughout history. You had good examples and horrible examples.

If you look at Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians, they were very much like the American church. And his telling the Church at Ephesus and Phillipians to stop behaving badly- telling lies, stealing, boasting, sueing each other... is very much like the kinds of messages needed today.

On one hand is an honest, "We're far from what we should be." On the other, "There is hope for us...because we are not the only ones struggling to live up to a high ideal."

Honestly, this conversation should be cut and paisted into a magazine.

I believe that "Christian Fiction" is riddled with difficulties that aren't found elsewhere. In general, you have a divided audience, in that you have theological perspectives to deal with, and imaginary and sometimes real lines. That is rather a sad thing, but a reality. And so you have this safe, "I will not offend any church..." zone which is going to produce pablum, or you have this, "I have an axe to grind" zone, which is going to be needlessly devisive.

So, from a loyalties perspective, you could lose an audience, regardless of your writing talents, only because of disagreements on theology. It just seem that there is a bunch of landminds out there.

In a sense, it seems wisest to use Jesus own approach to making a point, "the kingdom of heaven is like a man who had two sons..." and speak in proverbs and parables as oppossed to absolutes. In other words, you can miss the mark when you tell someone to do this or that, but you never miss the mark when you tell someone we should love, and the ultimate love is sacrificial.

Just a thought.

There are two ways to look at whether or not you should be a part of something or contribute to something.

1) What you get out of it?

2) What others get out of your doing it?

I think it's important to consider both. Sometimes a person can be someplace that really doesn't seem that stimulating, but sometimes we are in a place in life where we are the one who makes it worthwhile for someone else. Examples of this were Daniel and Joseph in the Old Testament. Neither was exactly where they would have wanted to be, but they certainly had a great impact where they were.

I'm not saying to seek a place of giving, without thinking if you are getting something. It mostly depends on where a person is at, whether or not this applies.

Shwebb said:

Please don't think I'm being a snob about church. It's just that I long for some real fellowship, and so many churches I've attended seem to go out of their way to avoid it, or to contain it, like a disease.

I want to find a place where God can use me, and in so many cases I've sensed so many closed doors already in place.

I now have two small kids (and another one due in a few weeks) so that increases the challenge now of seeing what a place is like.

Click to expand...

Awesome. Hope you find what you are looking for.
That's a most important mater when you have children, finding some place where they are nurtured, and feel important and like it is relevent to where they are at. Some places are kid/teen friendly.