There is, without question, different views as to the aim of Christian fiction. On one side are those who believe Christian fiction should target Christians — encourage them, inspire them, reinforce their values, and ultimately make them better believers. On the other side are those who believe Christian fiction should target seekers — whet their spiritual appetite, disarm antagonism, simplify biblical themes, reinforce a biblical worldview, and leave them thinking about God, Christ, sin, and/or heaven and hell. Finally, there’s those who believe that Christian fiction should do both.
Call it hair-splitting if you want, but how one answers these questions will determine how they approach, interpret, defend or critique the genre.
- Should Christian fiction aim to disciple believers?
- Should Christian fiction aim to evangelize seekers?
- Should Christian fiction aim to do both?
For the most part, writers and publishers of Christian fiction aim at the Church, not the world. Not long ago, celebrated Christian novelist Athol Dickson dropped by and left a comment on this post. He articulated what I think is the prevalent opinion amongst Christian novelists:
May God bless every Christian author who is trying to reach out to unbelievers, but while we are commanded to be “salt and light” to the world, evangelism also includes those who help prepare disciples. I do try to get the gospel in my novels somehow (sometimes only symbolically) but my mission is to write about Christian themes for Christian readers in the hope that I can help them become better children of the Lord. That’s the best reason to write “Christian fiction” in my opinion. (emphasis mine)
(My thanks to Athol Dickson for taking the time to leave a comment, which you can read in its entirety in the thread HERE.)
I think it’s accurate, as Athol suggests, to see evangelism and discipleship on the same continuum. By growing Christians and helping them reach their full potential, we in turn influence the world. In other words, the best evangelism may be in making strong disciples. So in this sense, there’s reasonable rationale for aiming fiction specifically at Christians. (Of course, this hinges upon the notion that Christian fiction is, in the long run, actually making better disciples. But that’s another post.)
But if Christian fiction is best understood as a ministry to believers and best functions as a tool for discipleship, it raises other questions, namely: the place of evangelism in Christian fiction. Should Christian publishers actively seek to balance out fiction aimed at believers with fiction aimed at seekers? Should Christian novelists really approach their stories as evangelistic tools? And if so, what compromises must they make to reach the secular “seeking” audience?
Interestingly enough, defining the place of evangelism and discipleship in Christian publishing has parallels to the place of evangelism and discipleship in the Christian Church.
Having pastored for 11 years, I learned that evangelism and discipleship were both necessary components of the church, and that the church suffered when one was emphasized over the other. Churches that focus on seekers and aim primarily to evangelize, potentially become theologically shallow and deficient at discipleship. On the other hand, churches that focus on Christians and aim primarily to disciple them, potentially become ingrown and deficient at evangelism. Evangelistic churches tend to be wider than they are deeper; discipling churches tend to be deeper than they are wider. One model sacrifices outreach for in-reach, and vice-versa. This is why the Church is often described as needing two wings — a discipling wing and an evangelism wing. Without both, we cannot fly.
So you can see where I’m going with this. If the Christian Church suffers when it does not balance evangelism and discipleship, does the Christian fiction industry suffer when it neglects the same balance? In other words, by aiming primarily at believers, are we ultimately hurting ourselves? I think there’s a good possibility. Let me explain.
Without an evangelistic outreach wing to the Christian fiction industry, we diminish our potential (and future) market. By targeting only Christian readers, we unnecessarily limit the boundaries of our own house, shrink our base, and fail to “impregnate” a second generation of “believing readers.” Similarly, churches that concentrate on nurturing the community of believers (discipleship) to the exclusion of evangelism often become ingrown, stagnant, and out-of-touch with the culture and the needs of their community. Statistics continue to reveal that many mainline denominations are in serious decline because of this. The holy huddle guaranteed their own demise. For years, seminaries concentrated on producing students with theological expertise. Thankfully, now many of those institutions are including missions and real-world encounters as part of their curricula. In other words, failure to look outside of ourselves can be terminal. Can the same be true for the Christian fiction industry?
Furthermore, without an outreach wing of Christian fiction, we potentially insulate ourselves against the audience who needs us the most. Really, are we here just for us? Of course, the problem in reaching a non-believing or marginally-believing audience — as it is with seeker-sensitive churches — is how much we soften and/or simplify our message to connect with them. It’s a legitimate question. In fact, this is the charge against so much “Christian worldview fiction” — it’s just not explicit enough. Yet I’d suggest these kinds of questions are inevitable, and essential. After all, when the first century church began spreading the Gospel, numerous “cultural collisions” occurred. Debates about eating pork, circumcision, slavery, meat sacrificed to idols, the role of women, cultural attachment, and interaction with heathens, were fairly common. Likewise, crafting fiction for seekers will provoke numerous theological questions. As it should.
All this to say, I sense there is a fundamental confusion among Christian authors as to the exact aim of Christian fiction. Is it evangelism, discipleship, or both? But at this stage, I’d have to suggest we’re flying on one wing.
Technically, and for all intents and purposes, Christian Fiction is a label used by publishers who pay to be affiliated with the Christian Booksellers Association. Other Christian authors may claim the label but they best do it with the knowledge that they will be associated with a crowd that serves a very narrowly targeted audience of Christians. The answer to your question depends on what type of Christian Fiction you're referring to. CBA/ECPA Christian Fiction is specifically for conservative evangelicals. Safe sanitized and Godly fiction. You can read all about it at cba.org I believe it is. 🙂
Sue, I'm referring to the standard definition of Christian fiction as applied by most of its authors, publishers and readers. As you can tell from my posts, I tend to hedge at this definition (in fact, I wonder that the category itself is problematic). Nevertheless, I accept that the genre is here to stay. However, even among conservative evangelicals there are differing opinions as to the purpose or aim of Christian fiction. Even though some see evangelism as a "secondary" purpose, they recognize that that aim as still important. We can't just talk to ourselves. But what an "evangelistic wing" of fiction would look like is another story.
Oh and it doesn't generally ever appeal to the general market Christian reader. It wasn't designed to. 🙂
"The answer to your question depends on what type of Christian Fiction you're referring to. CBA/ECPA Christian Fiction is specifically for conservative evangelicals. Safe sanitized and Godly fiction."
Sue, this is an old definition, and, granted, there are publishers and some imprints that fit this definition perfectly, but it doesn't completely apply to a fair-sized portion of current CBA novels.
Mike,
Conceptually, I agree with you. The argument you and I always have is based on the perception of definition of (and what encompasses) evangelism.
I'm with Billy Graham. The Gospel does not need to be watered down to make it more palpable. It doesn't need to be hidden behind P.R. tricks. It is what it is and should be presented as such.
sidenote: I don't know if you just haven't been reading them lately, Mike. But HALF of the CBA novels I read have no (or very little) Christian content whatsoever. So there you go–that ambiguous, impercievable Christian worldview that you champion is being published. But I have to warn you: still no f-words.
Shucks! No f-words?
As a writer, this has been one of the things I struggle with. Usually I come down on the "Christian fiction should be evangelistic but isn't" side of the argument. There is more than enough Christian fiction as entertainment. At the B&N I work at, "Religious Fiction" (which is 99% Christian) occupies 10 "bays" (defined at 6+ shelves floor to head) which each hold roughly thirty books). Very little of this appears to be aimed at evangelization of the lost — in fact, usually the lost wouldn't be caught dead in the religious fiction section. They're on the other side of the story in literature, mystery, SF/F/H. When I've approached a few genuinely agnostic/atheistic SF and F readers about reading overtly Christian genre novels, and if they don't laugh in my face, many of them point out that the genre writing skills of such authors are lower than even the Star Wars, Star Trek, Warhammer, Dragonlance/etc. "hacks" (their words, not mine). "Hack" writing is rarely nominated for the top awards in the field (Hugo, Gandalf, Nebula, Edgar, etc) and the same is true of Christian genre writing. It is my opinion that such writers hurt the cause of Christ rather than help it. Hence the reason my publications have been in ANALOG, CRICKET, CICADA and other "a-religious" magazines. My intent is to slip into their camp undetected and then share the gospel from a position best summarized by an anecdote I heard long ago: "1956 World Olympic weight-lifting champion Paul Anderson was a devout Christian and after his performance in the Olympics, toured the world as "the strongest man in the world". While in the Soviet Union, he performed before awestruck crowds. At the end of one such night, he turned to his audience and said through an interpreter, 'I could not live a day without Jesus Christ.'" That is what I would like to do. I am learning that that is not the approach for everyone (thank you, Mike). I do leave you with this question: Have we created Christian football, baseball, hockey, Olympic teams to encourage the Church — or do we expect our Christian athletes to perform to established world standards — and then share their lives in Christ?
Guy, I value Christian artists who do not write explicit, discipleship-aimed stories, for the exact reasons you mention — they are able to reach an audience CBA-aimed authors usually can't. The strength of the argument for the inclusion of such writers in the Christian camp is not if their stories have the "Christian code," but whether or not they actually are Christians and are open about that when given a chance (like the weight-lifting champion in your example above). Christian worldview authors like Bob Liparulo, Tim Downs, and T.L. Hines are open about their faith, even though their stories are not religiously explicit. In my view, these types of Christian authors provide a much-needed balance to the current Christian fiction milieu.
I've read T.L. HInes's books. There is no way they're going to evangelize to anyone.
You reach the lost with the Gospel, not a story written on the substructure of Western civilization societal happenstance.
Hines may be a wonderful christian who evangelizes with his life example, testimony, speaches, daily interactions, etc. but not with his here to date published novels.
Is it possible that these are simply the types of novels these writers want to write (and therefore should write), and then some want to attribute divine purpose so they won't feel guilty for leaving Christ out of the Christian novel?
I'm all for the so-called Christian worldview novel balancing out the garbage out there. That's why I'm a big fan of Robert Liparulo. Well, that and he's really good.
But to define evangelism as absent of Christ? I can understand absent of the overt Christianese and stereotypes that many Christians run from, but don't let the pendulum swing so far as to eliminate the Gospel itself or Jesus for that matter.
Dayle, ever heard of "building bridges"? Sometimes you have to befriend people before you start preaching to them. And who's defining evangelism as "the absence of Christ"? Not me. But does Jesus' name need to be mentioned after every single act or story for it to be "Christian"?
So Billy Graham should have "softened" his message and ended with "and next year I'll tell you what I really mean."
Actually, we have some common ground there. Dekker is a good example. If someone picks up Boneman's Daughters, Adam, or Skin and actually likes them, they'll probably seek out his earlier Christian works such as The Circle Trilogy.
However, in lieu of the Dekker model, reading only the so-called Christian worldview novels are bridges to nowhere.
I'm beginning to think of you as the resident CBA policeman, Dayle. No, Billy Graham shouldn't have "softened" his message. But think about this: someone had to get people to a Billy Graham crusade. Did that happen overnight? No. Evangelism is usually a process — one that takes years of incremental witnessing, praying, befriending, loving, exhortation, silence, preaching, crying, reasoning and rebuking. By using a Billy Graham crusade as an example of "evangelism", you are potentially down-playing the many seeds that were planted and watered along the way and over-looking the years of groundwork that it took to get someone there — some of which may or may not have involved actual speaking. While Christian worldview fiction may not be as explicit as a Billy Graham crusade, I'd suggest it can be part of a process to get readers there. Now, pocket the pepper spray.
I wasn't talking about novels, Mike. You brought up fiction as evangelism, not seed planting. I was discussing your definition of evangelism.
If you meant seed planting —- wait for it —– we agree.
However, the ambigous worldview fiction you speak of doesn't have any seeds. If you know an example of one, let me know. I'd be interested to check it out.
That reminds me, I have to write you out another citation.
Dayle. said: "I wasn't talking about novels, Mike. You brought up fiction as evangelism, not seed planting."
Mike responds: "Seed planting is part of evangelism" (I Cor. 3:6-7).
Dayle said: "…the ambigous worldview fiction you speak of doesn't have any seeds."
Mike responds: "Really? You know this? No Christian worldview fiction has "any seeds"? Um, have you told that to God?
The way I see it, these are 2 separate genres. You lump it all together under “Christian fiction.” I think there should be “Christian fiction” which is meant for Christians to build them up, encourage them and further equip them. But then, there should also be “evangelistic fiction” which is meant for the lost to reach them with the gospel. I write evangelistic fiction. Thus you may find my characters smoking and drinking and even using near-swear words, since they may not be Christians in the beginning of the book. Some Christians may take offense, but then I wasn’t writing it for them, was I? For more, you can read my whole article on Christian and evangelistic fiction at http://uniqueevangelisticnovels.blogspot.com or go here and vote as to whether or not you think evangelistic fiction can be effective.
Do you have any suggestion of any evangelistic fiction, if existing? That’s waht I was looking up when found your blog. Good article btw.