Christianity Today added a twist to the year-end “Best of” lists with The 10 Most Redeeming Films of 2006 selections. I’ve only seen two out of the ten, but what intrigued me more than the list itself, was 
how it was framed:
What do we mean by “redeeming” films? They’re all stories of redemption— sometimes blatantly, sometimes less so. Several of them literally have a character that represents a redeemer; one even includes the Redeemer. With others, you might have to look a bit harder for the redemptive thread, but it’s certainly there. Some are “feel-good” movies that leave a smile on your face; some might leave you uncomfortable, even disturbed, and asking, “How should I process that?” But you won’t be able to shake it from your memory, either.
Many Christians consider this type of approach to film wishy-washy. We shouldn’t have to “look a bit harder for the redemptive thread.” In fact, the concept of a “redemptive thread” affords too much wiggle room, they say, and ultimately allows works with questionable elements (i.e., cursing, sex, violence) to skirt in under the radar. How else could Children of Men and The New World — movies without an articulate biblical message or blatantly Christian characters — be considered thematically “redemptive”?
The argument, I believe, flows out of a narrow view of Christian art. In fact, I think the term itself, “Christian art,” (really, “Christian” anything — Christian fiction / film / music / jewelry / clothing) is ambiguous, creates unnecessary expectations in the viewer / reader / consumer, and potentially reduces the role of the Christian artist to that of propagandist.
By implication, “Christian art” requires a message.
Of course, it could said that all art contains a message, not just “Christian” stuff. The point is valid. Even as art veers into abstraction it elicits a response from the viewer. It could be revulsion or reverence, or just plain puzzlement. But artists want people to feel something. And that something could be considered the intended message.
This intended message is central to the “defenders” of “Christian art” for unless the art has a blatantly biblical message, the Christian is questioned.
For instance, Mute Math or P.O.D. aren’t considered “Christian bands” — despite being comprised of Christians — because their message is not clear enough. Likewise, authors such as Bob Liparulo or Tim Downs — who are openly believers — are not considered to be writing “Christian fiction” precisely because of the absence of a blatant biblical message. Forget that when these artists are engaged they are not hesitant to annunciate their beliefs; the fact that their “art” does not contain explicit references to those beliefs, makes it something other than “Christian.”
I just don’t get it.
Not only does the current view of “Christian art” potentially reduce the art to advertisement, it handcuffs the artist. . .at least, in their relation to the in-house critics.
Continued. . .
Great post. It’s never fun dealing with expectations, although everyone has them.
There is a simple explanation. I am a writer who happens to be a christian. However, I also feel called by God to use my writing as a ministry. Therefore, I am a Christian writer.
I am claiming the label and with that, I am claiming a higher responsibility. If I didn’t feel the call, I would simply tell people that I am a writer. My art would still reflect my Christianity. But not claim the calling of ministry.
So I challenge you Mike, pick one. Do you feel called or not. If you do, then claim the label Christian writer without shame, then go forth and lean on the Holy Spirit and take the path he has for you.
If you don’t feel called then be a writer and let your light shine through without the responsibility of the calling.
That is the difference. Third Day claims the label. They are called to minister through their art. U2 does not feel that call. But they still may, I repeat MAY minister through their art, But they are claiming that purpose. God hasn’t led them there. And, that’s not a bad thing either.
I say be honest about who you are. A Christian writer or a writer who’s Christian. Both have their place. One claims the calling — One does not.
thanks, dayle
Wait.
Mute Math and P.O.D aren’t Christian bands? Damn. What world have I been living in?
I’ve seen Mute Math in concert twice now and I could’ve sworn they were a Christian band.
How come we want our artists, authors, and actors to be “Christian,” but it’s less important for our plumbers, trash truck drivers, and grocery store clerks? What would Christian plumbing look like? Would the plumber pray over my pipes? Would a Christian trash hauler see what’s in my trash and pray for ME? Hmmmm … why expect something of one person and not another?
Because art speaks to our soul, plumbing does not.
dayle
mike,
you really stirred the pot here. it’s sort of funny…
i love the way you “pick a fight” 🙂
excellent.
should what we do always blatantly state, “i am a christian?”
or should we always live a life that causes others to be drawn to us, earning the privalege to be heard so we may then share our faith with a captive audience?
should it be one or the other?
can we sometimes blatantly share the “gospel” in our art and sometimes not?
should my life always be lived as though the gospel of Christ is tatooed visibly on my body?
or should i live my life in such a way that the mistique of Christ resonates from my heart and soul in such a way that others are magnatically drawn to me wanting what i have?
Hey dayle, I appreciate your candor. You wrote:
“I am a writer who happens to be a christian. However, I also feel called by God to use my writing as a ministry. Therefore, I am a Christian writer.”
Someone once said, “Every calling is great, when greatly pursued.” I think Mike E. was onto something when he mentioned plumbers and grocery clerks. Cannot those be as legitimate of “callings” as worship leader, Sunday School teacher or treasurer? What about the lady who feels called to minister as a vet? (Think Saint Francis.) Or the guy who feels called to ump Little League games? If a calling is genuinely from God then it doesn’t matter if one is writing for Sports Illustrated or Gospel Inc.
Which is the crux of the problem.
We’ve defined Christian art (maybe even Christian ministry) in far too narrow terms. Am I only a “Christian writer” if I write blatantly Christian things? Do I stop being a Christian writer when I write about sports or video games or the care and handling of boa constrictors? Or more to the point — Do I stop being a Christian writer if I write a story that contains no reference to God, Christ or the Bible?
You wrote: “. . .be honest about who you are. A Christian writer or a writer who’s Christian. Both have their place. One claims the calling — One does not.”
I appreciate you calling me out, dayle, and am not beyond needing an occasional slap. However, I think your distinctions are a little confusing. I do feel called by God to be a writer, which would make me a “Christian writer.” But where this writing will take me, and what I will write, remain mysteries.
Thank you, dayle, for taking the time to comment, and wrestling with this important issue with me. Blessings!
Thanks Mike,
You know, I actually agree with you, so you’re right — it’s confusing.
As a former pastor, then you’re probably more familiar with the bible concept of those who are in a leadership role in the church being held to a higher standard than lay christians, than I am.
This is the crux of my point. Believers of any ilk who don’t have the calling can be greater missionaries or evangelists than those of us who do. It’s not a question of importance or status. It’s a question of personal stand. I am declaring myself a Christian writer, therefore I am holding myself to a higher standard of conduct. It doesn’t mean that it makes me a better or more important writer. Bono reaches far more people than the lead singer of my church worship band. Both have their place. One is called, one is not. I am not judging. It is a conviction between each and God.
I am speaking more to the point of What is Christian art? I believe the label is declared by the artist. That declaration depends on the call. It is semantics. I am a Christian writer. I am giving that area of my life to God. If I were a writer who is a Christian, then I would be free to write for me. But that doesn’t mean my Christianity wouldn’t shine through. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t touch people.
Art is different. It speaks to our souls. Often it reflects it.
To label or not is to declare the intention of the artist and the level of responsibility. Not to judge the effectiveness of its work.
It just seems to me that some want the benefits of being a Christian “whatever” but not the responsibility that comes with it.
p.s. I apologize if I sounded rude. It was not my intent. e-mail inflection is tough. I respect your opinion, that is why I keep coming back. Maybe one day we’ll meet at a Christian writer’s conference and you’ll see that I just love a good friendly intellectual debate.
–dayle
I don’t think it’s a question of what speaks to the soul or what doesn’t. After all, which of us can know what speaks to anothers soul?
I’m hesitant to say that a Christian plumber is any different from a Christian singer or author. We are all nothing without Christ.
There is no difference unless one claims the calling. If a plumber claims his vocation as a ministry then he becomes a Christian plumber instead of a Christian whose job is a plumber. I know its semantics, but words mean things.
case in point: Creed is a band with a singer who is a Christian who writes, sometimes, christian lyrics. There is no telling how many people were touched by the song “Higher”. However, he does not feel called to ministry so he says we are not a Christian band. If we find out tomorrow that he is a heroine addict and a frequent visitor to brothels, the response will be “oh, well. He never claimed to be a ministry.”
On the other hand, if we find out the same thing about Chris Tomlin or Michael W. Smith, it would break our hearts. The storyline would be “You see, you Christians are all hypocrites. It’s Jimmy Swaggart all over again.”
Also, Creed is warning us. We are not a ministry: There may be content that you find offensive such as foul language.
Chris Tomlin is saying trust me. My music is for the glory of God. And if I fail you, he will deal with me harshly.
Thanks for reading,
dayle
Could it be that God, Himself, doesn’t label things as Christian, that He only labels disciples of Christ as Christian?
We, on the other hand, are so determined to classify things, that we’ll slap a label on anything. But then, none of us really agree on the same label.
Labels are good/bad, worthless/valuable, up/down, inside/out. We’re just little control freaks attempting to make sense of this overwhelming thing we call life.
Take it up a notch and say we are all right, and all wrong at the same time. If my words are right, my heart might be wrong. If my heart is right, my delivery may lack… Maybe that’s why God created the good works for us to walk in and made them as individual as we are. If the good works would’ve been left up to us…shudder.
There is only one you, and God has a peculiar design and audience for you. Times six billionish.
And God has been known to use His enemy as a tool to bring someone to the truth. Augh! My head is spinning. Must stop thinking…
Mike, my disagreement with you is also my disagreement with many in Christian publishing circles. It seems you both see only two kinds of writing—either blatant or not so when it comes to the gospel message.
Redemptive themes don’t have to be blatant to be present.
The presence of redemptive themes does not have to equate to “advertisement.”
We’ve been over this territory before. I’m going to see if I can get an example of what I’m talking about on line. If not, I’ll post it on my site and then we’ll have something specific to talk about.
BTW, have you read Liparulo’s Germ? I find it amusing that he is being credited with so much (Jeff Gerke included his work in a list of speculative stories. I never read Comes a Horseman but Germ is so NOT speculative. Christian? Can you spend 359 pages (or however long it is) and ignore all things (OK, to be honest, most things) related to God and in one paragraph present redemption? Now that’s an interesting question.
Becky
Thanks for the comments, all! Ame, I love your phrase, “the mystique of Christ.” Kelly, I believe you’re right about our propensity to label everything. It’s leftover modernity. And Becky, it’s just the opposite. I think redemptive themes, far from advertisement, can be subtle strains of the Gospel. My difference with proponents of “Christian art” is not the presence of redemptive themes, but the degree of “non-subtlety” required for those themes to be considered “Christian.” God bless you all!
are you sure there’s not a secret democrat lurking, hiding their true identity 😉
thanks for the wisdom. i find one of the most difficult aspects about being a single parent is not having anyone to bounce things off of; i’m always fearful i’m too much one way or another; finding that balance is difficult.
and … thanks for the prayers.
Mike, now I’m confused. You’re saying it’s OK to have redemptive themes, but as soon as the redemption looks anything like Christ’s redemption, then it’s not OK?
I think the problem is with our definiton of “Christian” perhaps.
Becky
Now you’ve got me confused, Becky. It’s the opposite direction. When the redemption looks “less” like Christ’s — in other words, less articulate, less Scriptural, less blatantly biblical — then it’s not OK. In order to be published in CBA, I must “spell out” redemptive themes; they must be forthright, unambiguous. I am arguing that “subtle” Christian themes are as much Christian as the overt. The problem is not with our definition of Christian, but the definition of Christian fiction.