Should Christian Fiction be "Christian?"

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.

james1611 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

james1611 said:

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

Click to expand...

Genres (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.

Roger J Carlson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Roger J Carlson said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Simple Living said:

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.

Click to expand...

We should talk.

Simple Living said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Simple Living said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Simple Living said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Simple Living said:

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.

Click to expand...

Amen!

windyrdg said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Plot Device said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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."

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.

BruceJ said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

No biggie.

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.

james1611 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Plot Device said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?