There is a potential incongruity between Christian theology and speculative fiction.
- Christian theology
articulates the known. Speculative fiction probes the unknown. - Christian theology constructs parameters. Speculative fiction deconstructs parameters.
- Christian theology codifies beliefs. Speculative fiction questions beliefs.
- Christan theology is rooted in revelation. Speculative fiction relies on mystery.
Organizers of the recent panel Science and Theological Imagination in Science Fiction acknowledged this potential incongruity in their Purpose statement:
If science fiction is the literary exploration of the larger universe, religion is the body of beliefs and rituals that help to link the familiar worlds of human meaning and experience to that more sweeping and mysterious cosmos. Religion demands commitment to particular sets of stories about that world. Science fiction calls for a more self-conscious or ironic suspension of belief. (emphasis mine)
So while religion “demands commitment to particular sets of stories” (Noah’s 
Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, the Resurrection of Christ, etc.), speculative fiction works to challenge, explore, build upon, or in some cases, completely rewrite those stories. Perhaps this is another reason why religious fiction and the speculative genre have such an uneasy relationship.
I was recently asked to write an Afterword for The Resurrection. The reason was to eliminate any possible confusion regarding a character in the story named Mr. Cellophane. Mr. Cellophane is… not human. Nor is he an angel or
a demon. Which can create a potential problem for Christian readers.
Even though it’s only four pages long, I’m very proud of that section of the book. During the writing, it made me appreciate how important theology is to understanding the world around us, but also how potentially limiting it can be.
For some, theology makes the world smaller, not bigger.
Revelation is at the heart of the Christian religion. Whereas the primitives worshiped bronze images and heavenly bodies, Yahweh revealed Himself as quite the opposite. Along the way, He framed a world of wonder. However, for many, theology has just the opposite effect and Divine revelation becomes an experiential cul-de-sac.
Anyway, writing that Afterword helped me clarify some of my own beliefs, one of which was this:
Christian theology articulates an open universe, not a closed one.
This is not meant to suggest that there are no moral, physical, or spiritual boundaries, but that the boundaries the Bible frames are bigger than what many Christians concede. Which is why Scripture contains fabulous stories about talking serpents, flaming chariots, angelic warriors, and resurrected men. There is such a thing as heresy and false doctrine, and believers do well to “test all things” (I Thess. 5:21). This, however, is not a license to “quench the Spirit” (I Thess. 5:21). A theology that strips the world of mystery is not only Spirit-quenching, it is out of whack with reality.
Which leads me to ask:
Does your theology strip the world of mystery, or imbue the world with wonder?
The tension between Christian theology and speculative fiction is always on the believer’s end. In one sense, the Christian reader and/or writer of speculative fiction should check their stories against the Bible. Conversely, sometimes those same readers / writers need check their theology there as well. Yes, some speculative fiction is contrary to the biblical worldview, incongruous with Christian theology. But a world that is completely stripped of mystery is not only boring, it is not biblical.
First, Christian Theology does not articulate “the known”. It articulates the believed.
That said, belief is not a constant. There is room within Christian belief for speculation as to the boundless nature of the universe, even if the boundless nature is fictional. Some Christians would disagree with that, but that is because their own belief structure doesn’t acknowledge speculation.
Mine does. I think yours does as well.
Dan, you’re right. By theology articulating “the known,” I probably meant more to suggest “the revealed.” I think of this verse:
“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law,” DEUT 29:29. The idea being that “the secret things” belong to the realm of speculation.
Thanks for your comments, Dan. Have a blessed holiday!
I was at a sci-fi/fantasy con a couple of months ago where the guest of honor was David Gerrold (author, most well-known for writing “The Trouble With Tribbles,” if ya don’t know). He opened his speech with a comment about how science fiction and theology are incompatible. He basically said science fiction, and science in general, seek the unknown and look for answers; but theology offers answers and tells you to look no farther.
I personally feel he has it completely backward. Science without theology is limited by the physical world. The “laws” of physics, the boundaries of time, space, gravity, etc., set limits on how far you can take things. Evolutionary thinking limits ideas to what can continue from what already exists and nothing more. BUT a belief in God opens up the entire spiritual realm, where time, space, and physical laws aren’t limiting factors. The possibilities are endless as to what we can ponder and the stories we can create.
Secular science may seek answers, but it also assumes those answers are attainable and can be fully comprehended by our human brains. Theology says we can’t even begin to comprehend it all. How does that limit us to the “known,” or “construct parameters” when it comes to fiction?
When Christian Theology and speculative fiction setting do co-exist, it allows for the greatest good vs evil genre since the western. In Biblical speculative fiction setting is created within the parameters of Theology. Many more Christian artists are exploring in worlds of speculative fiction, and according to Writer’s Digest, religious spec-fic has been one of the fastest growing segments of literature in recent years.
Frank, do you have a link for that WD article? I’m assuming they’re referring to indie and small press, because mainstream religious publishers don’t seem to be publishing a lot of spec-fic. Thanks for commenting. I hope you’re doing well.
Mike, no, I’m afraid the article was in an issue a few years ago. The spec-fic genre began to blossom before the economy impacted publishers and some planned books got trimmed from budgets. Still, just on Christian shelves, there are many more Biblical titles than five years ago. Also, authors like Kacy Barnett-Gramckow (in 2011), are crossing over into Biblical spec-fic.
Oh–and thanks, I am well, back atcha, Mike. I also meant to say that five years ago spec-fic titles were so rare the genre had no place to go but up! The booklist at http://wherethemapends.com has probably doubled in size over that period of time.
f
The spiritual tradition I’m a part of would disagree with all those opening statements, save to some degree the last one.
Theology is about preserving the mystery as much, if not more so, than defining anything. Theology is rather seen as providing fences of where not to go, than fencing something in definitively. That’s because we cannot know God fully in His essence. I like to put it whenever eternity and the finite intersect, you have mystery.
To do that, theology is normally approached in a negative manner. IOW, instead of saying what something is, we say what it is not. You see this most clearly in the early church’s council on Christ being both fully God and fully man. It then goes on to say what that statement does not mean: He is not a mixture of the two, one nature didn’t subsume the other, they are not separate, but they both still exist fully within him, and so on.
Any statement about God is by default inadequate because we are talking about an existence outside of time as well as operating in time. He created time and is not subject to it. For us finite beings, that is incomprehensible. Even our best fiction writers cannot imagine what that kind of existence is like. Or how it is even possible for such an existence to operate inside of time. Yet revelation says He is and He does.
As Kat said, that opens up more possibilities for the speculative fiction writer because for God, any “what if” was a definite possibility for Him.
Now there are still those fences that we know God is not. We should still keep true to those. One needs to be careful not to promote a theology that leads people away from God and Christ. But readers should also be aware that while speculative fiction can enable one to experience that theology played out in “real” life vicariously through a character, the author of that book is not infallibly inspired and will get things wrong.
While it is fine to do what some have, and dig out the theology of a work of fiction, like some have done with Harry Potter, we don’t “get” our theology from those works either. One should hopefully never see, for instance, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as a textbook in a systematic theology class in college.
While want our theology to promote as accurate a take on it as we understand and be consistent, our goal isn’t to teach theology. Indeed, if anything is true here, speculative fiction can and should on occasion stretch people’s perspectives, their assumed, preconceived ideas about God and the world around them. Challenge, in other words, the man-made theology that does exactly what you describe, stripping God of his mystery.
You say, “For us finite beings, that is incomprehensible. Even our best fiction writers cannot imagine what that kind of existence is like. Or how it is even possible for such an existence to operate inside of time.”
I most humbly disagree.
I think as writers we should have more of an awareness of that reality than anyone else should.
Consider: We are made in the image of God and are called his children. Without getting all into the “little gods” debate and all of that stuff, the basic thing is that on a base level we have very similar attributes to God that no other creation that we are aware of can claim, and if we are family there is a spiritual DNA that is there for us to act like Him in the way we can even while still existing in fallen flesh.
As such, when we write we are “creating” worlds that exist within a “space and time” continuum of our own doing. If we are a good writer, then we are that world’s Alpha and Omega and should know the end from the beginning of our writing it. We then proceed to write the story out and see it take place. That is like God observing us from outside of time and space as we live our lives. Then we edit and situations and characters call out to us for change, and we give it the change it needs. That’s like when God hears our cries of faith and then exists in our time and space to create change in our lives and situations. Once we have done all the edits that need to be done and send it to be printed, we are saying “It is finished!” and then the character’s story is now a thing to be viewed by anyone that wants to view that character. Just like how in eternity we have speculated that we can look “back” in time and view the events of someone’s life. Probably where that “cloud of witnesses” comes from as so many people outside of time is constantly viewing us.
At least, that’s how I look at things. Feel free to disagree.
Um, that was in response to R.L. Copple and I thought would be subcategorized under him. I must have hit the wrong button initially before responding.
I don’t disagree with the bulk of what you wrote, David. My point is that we are unable to even conceive of an existence outside of time. Our very language is time bound. As soon as we used past tense, we are in time. As soon as we talk about God, we use time-bound language simply because we have no other context in which to talk or even think about things other than on a time-line continuum.
For instance, we say that God created the world. Right there, we’re referring to God as something He did in the past, but for Him it is all “now.” He sees those events as happening at the same “time” He is experiencing the resurrection. We simply have no experiential means to even imagine what a timeless existence would be like. It is incomprehensible to us.
And then to realize that God Himself is infinite, that we can never reach the fullness of His love, though we seek for it eternally. Thus the paradoxes of our faith. That the Infinite God is contained in the womb of a woman. That the hands of St. Symeon, created by God, hold’s God in the flesh. It is also why we speak of a totally illogical statement as fact: that Jesus Christ is eternally begotten of the Father. That there wasn’t a time when He was not.
Eternally and begotten are contradictory statements that make no sense on our time-bound level. But make perfect sense from God’s perspective. Thus are created the mysteries, and why God steadfastly refuses to be put in our theological boxes. He always ends up breaking out of them.
Good thoughts, though. 🙂
Thanks for the reply, R.L. And I happen to agree with most of what you said too, even if perhaps for different reasons than you have. 😉 But on that one point I had to diverge and say what I said there.
To bring further clarity on what I meant:
I fully believe that God wants us to know Him and that’s one of the main reasons he made sure to give us His book so that we can get to know Him, not to mention that He indwells within us with His Holy Spirit so that we can commune with him. Yet God is an infinite and omnipotent God, so no matter how much we come to know Him, and how much He reveals to us on so many levels, there will always be even more of Him to understand.
So in that way we will “never” understand all of Him on this plane of existence, and most likely in eternity either as there will always be more to reveal, and as He reveals more of Himself, then we can understand more of ourselves since we are made to be like Him, and therefore will always depend on Him as our Father and our God through whom all blessings flow because without Him we are nothing, but with Him we are everything because He shows us who we are and what we can accomplish by revealing Himself to us. And since there will always be more, we have to totally rely on Him, and that’s how I see this working.
Yes, it’s simplistic, but I don’t think God is as complicated in His methods as we make Him out to be, He’s just a complex character in that there is so much to reveal. But the revelation is a much more simple process than we make it out to be. Does that make sense?
And when it comes to “differing” “opinions” about God, I tend to see things from the diamond perspective in that a diamond can have many facets to it and the beauty can seem quite different depending on which facet you are focusing on, and if there was a diamond big enough for all of us to have a facet to stand on we would all be describing to each other what we see and trying to get the others to come over to where we’re at to see it how we see it, yet the rest of us is still so fascinated with what we’re seeing that we have a very hard time moving from what we see. When we do actually move to another facet, then our understanding expands and we are awash again in the beauty and wind up focusing on another aspect of God. We just all need to learn to listen to one another and trust that the Holy Spirit speaking inside of us is also speaking inside of the other Believer. 😉
Hi David,
Yes, it makes sense, but I would postulate this isn’t an either/or issue. I fully agree that we can know God, that we can partake of His life, that He interacts with His creation. But that doesn’t negate the fact that I can’t imagine an existence apart from time. Nor does it erase the pure wonder how such an infinite, unknowable in his essence, God can be so personal and intimate with me. This is a mystery that defies all human logic. But I trust it makes perfect sense to God from His perspective, and the point I was getting at.
That God is such other, and yet so intimate with His creation, that it shows forth the mystery that we cannot exhaust in our writing.
It’s sort of like my systematic theology professor said, back in my college days, at the beginning of the semester. Paraphrased from what I remember: “We are about to attempt the impossible: describe God.” And then we proceeded to do just that, knowing we would never totally succeed. For finite human logic, attempting to deduce and induce from revealed truth, can never find the bottom of His truth. And personally, that’s a good thing. I wouldn’t want a God that I could figure out. 😉 Then it becomes an idol.
I think we’ve said the same thing in different ways, so therefore I believe we agree a whole lot more than any perceived disagreement that any one may have. Thanks for this brief discussion. Very encouraging! 😀
“So while religion ‘demands commitment to particular sets of stories’ (Noah’s Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, the Resurrection of Christ, etc.)…”
But what’s amazing HERE is that there is no end to the stories! Unlike Lois McMaster Bujold’s VORKOSIGAN books which will have an end (*sigh*), as Christians, we should expect that there are OTHER stories out there. Who’s to say that in writing specfic we don’t hit on one or two of the stories that weren’t written in Scripture?
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” John 21:25 (KJV)
“Speculative fiction probes the unknown.”
Yes…and no.
Since I’m a big fan of dystopia I’ll add that one of the big things speculative fiction does is provide warnings. “What will the world look like if…” My novel answers that question on several levels. For instance, I seek to answer the question, “What will the world look like if the U.S. government gains complete control of food production and distribution.” Answer…they may use it to manipulate the collective brain chemistry of the nation, so DON’T let that happen.
What I know is that the Bible supports the notions of personal liberty and responsibility. What I don’t know is how exactly the world would look when people relinquish those rights to the government. I know it would not be a place I would want to live, but as for the details, I can only speculate.
So…looks to me like speculative fiction and the Bible are complementary. At least in this case.
Oh, and…read my blog read my blog read my blog read my blog read my blog read my blog read my blog read my blog read my blog. 😉
I know this is off-topic for Mike’s discussion, but haven’t we already relinquished much of our food production rights to the govt? For heaven’s sake, it’s illegal to sell or buy raw milk in my state, and the govt treats people who want to do either like they’re crack dealers–and that’s just one little, bitty example. Add in forced immunizations and forced irradiation of numerous products and water supplies forcefully polluted by fluoride, and GMOs rammed down our throats whether we want them or not . . . Don’t even get me started. I’m glad you’re writing a book/have written a book about it. Is it available to read yet? Oh, all right, I’ll read your blog.
Preach sister! 🙂 I do think we are much farther down the road of government intervention than people realize. It’s very difficult, however, to get addicts to realize their body chemistry is being altered by substances deemed “safe” by the FDA (after all the FDA is looking out for us right?). And that’s what we are, a nation of addicts.
Calling someone an addict tends to make them mad, I’ve learned. I haven’t blogged much about the subject for that reason, but I do touch on it here: http://jessicathomasink.com/blog/?p=38
You’ve also inspired me to pull out an old blurb I wrote about the science behind my novel. I’ll post it on Friday if you want to check back.
Thanks for your interest, and sorry to hijack your comments section Mike!
I don’t know about some of this. I think Protestant perspectives present part of the problem here, whereas those feeling quite at home as Christians in this genre and fantasy like Tolkien would not feel so much tension from a Catholic position. Here he made room for mystery, saw natural theology as significant as written revelation, and imagination as important as reason. And in a non-traditional, popular theology that engages the imagination, can’t theology probe the unknown and the known, deconstruct parameters at times (even if it threatens our dogma), question beliefs, and find a balance between revelation (from multiple sources) as well as mystery?
John, thanks for visiting. I have the same response to your comments as I do to Cory’s below: I’m wondering if you read my whole post. I think we’re arguing for the same thing. My point is that it is precisely a poor understanding / implementation of Christian theology that causes a wedge in some people’s minds between Christian theology and speculative fiction.
If I misunderstood you, which I hope I did, then I apologize, Mike. There really is no controversy here, if science fiction and theology are properly understood.
It may be a testament to my upbringing that I had to be *informed* of this controversy like I had to be *informed* of the supposed controversy between science and religion. They’re not things that I had even conceived of on my own… I was well, well into the latter half of my teens before finding out that I wasn’t supposed to accept evolution or whatever, according to people who either didn’t go to my church or went to no church at all.
Now here I am, within spitting distance of turning 33 and discovering that all along I was supposed to be having some kind of problem with science fiction too. Thankfully at this stage, I’m better equipped to question the controversy than I was when I discovered I wasn’t supposed to like dinosaurs (my response at the time was “what, are you crazy?!”). To the point: what are the assumptions going into this about what theology is and what “speculative fiction” is?
That’s probably why it never, ever occured to me that there is a problem here. The assumptions I’m reading above are not, shall we say, necessarily born out by the evidence. “Speculative fiction” is about probing the unknown, deconstructing parameters, questioning beliefs, and reliant on mystery? What? Since when?! Did the person(s) saying that ever actually read any Sci-Fi books or watch any Sci-Fi movies? Or are all those stories supplying easy answers, moral parameters, reaffirming assumptions and peddling someone’s didactic philosophical point somehow not REAL[tm] “speculative fiction”?
On the other side of the coin, Christian theology is about articulating the known, constructing parameters, codifying beliefs, and so thoroughly rooted in revelation (like that’s necessarily a bad thing)? Wha’ huh?!? I may grant the last point a bit, being a Lutheran, but even that only carries you so far. Theology as I have known it is ALL about asking questions and questioning answers. It’s called the Queen of the Sciences because, like the physical and social sciences, you’re processing vast amounts of information in order to arrive at some kind of tentative conclusions that are in a constant state of rigorous challenge.
Maybe David Gerrold should stick to writing about Tribbles instead of venturing into academic subjects of which he knows not, before uttering any more embarrassing, demonstrably false cliches. Jeepers.
Anyways, that this controversy exists in the minds of some people and what their assumptions are that allow it to tells me more about them than it does about either Sci-Fi or Christianity. I would admittedly be at a loss, however, to *defend* by being a Christian who loves Sci-Fi (and a professional science educator with graduate degree in theology) because I hadn’t occured to me that they’re in conflict. I wouldn’t know what to say because the case would have to be proven, based on evidence and sound argument rather than wishful thinking and unsubstantiated assumptions.
Ah, but there was a specific question: “Does your theology strip the world of mystery, or imbue the world with wonder?”
My immediate reaction to this is to point out that mystery =\= wonder. I appreciate the rhetorical flourish here, but you’re asking two separate questions here. Wonder is not necessarily contingent on mystery, and mystery does not necessarily inspire wonder.
Pedantry aside, I would say that the Queen of the Sciences neither afflicts mystery nor wonder any more than any of the physical and social sciences do. Why would it?
Cory, appreciate your comments. See my response to John above, firstly. I think you guys missed my point and, if you’d oblige me, would encourage to re-read the last para of my post. Second, perhaps in your circles there is no controversy between sci-fi / spec-fic and theology. Great. As one who writes and (sometimes) reads “Christian fiction,” I can tell you that speculative elements and theology are a huge issue in religious publishing circles. The reason my publisher requested I write the Afterword for my novel was precisely to clarify theology regarding a paranormal incident (see my post Another Perspective on Ghosts). Thanks for commenting!
Maybe I am misreading but it still seems like your last paragraph is conceding too much to the assumption that “speculative fiction” and science is a broader sense are about mystery and questioning and things like that as opposed to theology. Or, basically, you’re conceding that the tension exists, which is what I find baffling.
I suppose this is understandable given your personal experience, but it also needs to be clarified. What you have is not a tension between *theology* and Sci-Fi. What you have is a tension between a certain (presumably) Evangelical Christian publisher and Sci-Fi. There are undoubtedly certain peculiarities of their doctrine and praxis that might make for some controversy, but it’s not reasonable to extrapolate that to the whole of Christianity, religion or theology.
While an interesting discussion, the premise itself is flawed. First, Christianity does not articulate the known because the basis for Christian theology is the study of God and God’s relationship to the world. And by the very nature of the subject (God), one cannot know the unknowable. Certainly we as Christians strive to “know” God, but we can only know what is revealed. And to say speculative fiction probes the unknown is only presenting part of the purpose of any kind of fiction.
Fiction without an element of truth fails. Secular of Christian. Speculative or otherwise. While the story may probe the unknown, the story is simply a vehicle for the meaning or truth of the story. Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, is speculative fiction. A ghost story. But the truth conveyed by the story which spends each page delving into the unknown is the truth of reclamation. As broken creatures we can be reclaimed by the God who created us. The same can be said of other more contemporary speculative fiction examples filled with the message of salvation, reclamation and repentance.
That sounds pretty compatible with Christian theology.
It is also stated that “Speculative fiction deconstructs parameters … questions beliefs … relies on mystery.” This is more a case of the literary techniques and aspects of plotting than an actual definition of what speculative (or any other) fiction does. In real life we also Speculative fiction deconstruct parameters, questions beliefs and sometimes and get caught up in our own mysteries. Are we too incompatible with Christian theology. Because speculative fiction also reinforces parameters, upholds beliefs and clings to what is true.
And interestingly, in order for Christan theology to be rooted in revelation, does revelation not follow mystery?
Wwhile the “organizers of the recent panel Science and Theological Imagination in Science Fiction acknowledged this potential incongruity in their Purpose statement … If science fiction is the literary exploration of the larger universe, religion is the body of beliefs and rituals that help to link the familiar worlds of human meaning and experience to that more sweeping and mysterious cosmos. Religion demands commitment to particular sets of stories about that world …” again, the premise is flawed.
Again, religion is the service and worship of God . Not the “cosmos.” And there is a great difference. And religion does not demand “commitment to particular sets of stories about that world.” It demands commitment to God. Again, the stories are a means of conveying truth — in this case, God.
So, rather than the two being potentially incompatible, the opposite must be true. Otherwise, how does one explain such works as:
Calculating God (Robert J. Sawyer)
Canticle for Liebowitz (Walter Miller)
Last and First Men and Star Maker: Two Novels (W. Olaf Stapledon)
The “Ender” quartet of novels (Orson Scott Card)
The Dybbuk of Mazel Tov IV (Robert Silverberg)
Thomas Smith
Theologian/Author of Something Stirs
Your initial premises as to what theology and speculative fiction are are very shaky. Let’s look at the question logically. If there are cases of speculative fiction which coexist happily with Christian theology, then the answer to your question must be yes. Given the existence of Arthur C. Clarke’s short story “The star”, Walter M. Miller’s “A Canticle for Leibowitz”, Antony Boucher’s “The Quest for St. Aquin”, and other such works – works which contemplate the tenets of the Christian faith whilst staying within its codified parameters – the answer can only be yes.