Question: Can God still turn a rod into a snake? He did it once (Ex. 7:10-13), so there’s a biblical basis for the phenomenon. Right? So what if I wrote a fictional story about a backwoods preacher who could turn sticks into serpents. Maybe he donated the critters for venom research or made jerky out of them. Whatever. The point is, he duplicated a biblical miracle. My guess is that, even though the miracle has a Scriptural basis, many Christians would still debate the theology of such a story. Is the preacher’s power from God? If it is, is he using that power for the right reason? Or does God really perform those types of miracles anymore? Either way, theology would become a test of the story’s Christian compatibility. At least, for believers.
When it comes to religious fiction, these types of questions are par for the course. Along with maybe the absence of language and sex, and a positive portrayal of church-goers, theology is a defining factor in distinguishing the genre. Does it jive with Scripture? The question I have is whether or not that assessment can be easily made, and whether it should be made at all.
In a post entitled Christian… or Fiction?, Becky Miller recently pondered the limits of Christian fiction as it relates to biblical fact. How much freedom should Christian authors have in tinkering with historical facts or theology? The comments there are indicative of the debate that rages about how far Christians should go in their fictional noodling.
Me? I tend to think Christians let theology unnecessarily limit our storytelling and imagination; we impose theology to our creative detriment. I began my comments at Becky’s site this way:
I’m not sure where the line between fact and fiction should be drawn, but for most Christians, I think it’s drawn too conservatively. If we want to be sticklers, we can impose all kinds of historical and theological “facts” upon our fiction. Take for instance, C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce, about a fantastic bus ride from Hell to Heaven. Well, Scripture seems to suggest there’s a “great gulf fixed” (Lk. 16:26) between Heaven and Hell. So doesn’t that render Lewis’ entire device unbiblical?
I happen to be rereading The Great Divorce, so it was on my mind. The fact that the conceptual springboard for the story has no biblical foundation does not stop me from enjoying the tale in the least. Why? Because it’s fiction, for one. Secondly, the truths it elucidates are entirely biblical. Yes, the Bible says there is an impassable barrier between Heaven and Hell. But does that mean one can never ponder — in a fictional tale or elsewhere — what the citizens of Hell would do were they to encounter citizens of Heaven? Especially if that fictional encounter further illumined some biblical truths. Regardless, there are those who would begrudge such a story on the grounds that it is does not jive with sound doctrine — souls simply cannot cross from Hell to Heaven.
Granted, this may be an extreme example. I’ve personally never heard of anyone objecting to Lewis’ fictional bus ride. Though it wouldn’t surprise me. The Lord of the Rings, however, does have its detractors. While some consider LotR to be one of the greatest works of fiction ever penned by a believer, others believe its theology is askew. The Bible condemns witchcraft and sorcery, they say. So how can Gandalf not be antagonistic to a Christian worldview? On these same grounds, any book with wizards, sorcerers, spells or incantations, is categorically branded as Scripturally unsound. Thus begins a never-ending, legalistic, spiral.
This is an example, in my opinion, of how Christians use theology to restrict, rather than free their storytellers. The author writing for the Christian market is invariably forced to dot her doctrinal I’s and cross her theological T’s. Bus riders from Hell to Heaven — not to mention wizards and snake handlers — will be subject to interrogation. And along the way, we’re so busy straining at gnats, that we swallow camels.
For the record, I’m unresolved on where that line should be drawn. If a story does not blatantly contradict core Christian doctrines, deny biblical history, or blaspheme what Scripture deems sacred, then, from my perspective, the fictional elements are up for grabs. Either way, there’s a difference between art and theology. And being liberal toward art is a lot safer than being liberal toward theology.
Hello Mike, This is my first time posting here and I think your articles are great. This one is particular seems to touch on a pretty rough basis, fiction and theology. I do agree that Christians will limit themselves largely when its comes to writing fiction. However, not everything in the fiction Christians will write needs to be strictly biblical. God want to use fiction as a groundbreaking medium to tell his stories without being overtly cheesy as Kingbury and Dekker seem to think.
Christian fiction won't be picked up by non believers in massive quantities because our fiction is sooooooo reliant upon theology. If there were someway to make our fiction more subtle…..does that make sense? Hope i didn't stray from the original topic
Mike said: "…the truths it elucidates are entirely biblical."
Exactly! Great post.
Mike, sorry I haven't had time to enter into the discussion at my site more — specifically, that I haven't answered your thoughtful comment.
Unfortunately, I have heard criticism of The Great Divorce on the very grounds you mention. I say "unfortunately" because God used that book in such a powerful way in my life to teach me to view the unseen as more real than the seen.
BTW, does Lewis ever explicitly say the Gray Town is hell? (It's been a long time since I read the book).
As to the topic, I like your three test points: blatantly contradict core Christian doctrines, deny biblical history, or blaspheme what Scripture deems sacred.
Interestingly, in a book I read recently, a character receives a message from his dead father that puts him on the right path. I was ready to lambast … or maybe gently criticize … the story on that point. But that same week, I heard from a missionary I've known since college. Faithful, full of love for God, completely honest, not given to ecstatic utterance or healing. This missionary told the story of a person they met who saw a vision of a dead ancestor pointing to the Bible. This in a culture that reveres ancestors. The person who saw the vision immediately sought out a Bible, which God provided in a miraculous way.
Uh, truth may be stranger than fiction.
The key is making fiction believable. And this is where a lot of the sticks-to-snakes type events fall short, I think.
Becky
I wasn't going to enter the fray here, Mike. For once I was going to remain quiet, observant. Christian writers may attempt to dot their doctrinal i's and cross their t's, but as I've pointed out before in various discussions, who says we agree on doctrine. It certainly wasn't God's idea for us to break ourselves up into denominational groups but we've done it. Some of us flex and cooperate with other doctrinal issues, and some don't.
So my point here is there's no room in Christian fiction to come against the core beliefs in that salvation comes through Jesus, the Three-in-One, heaven or hell as destination choices. However, there is much Christian fiction which presents virtually no overt Christian message (i.e. Tim Downs' Bug Man novels, Robert Liparulo's thrillers, Denise Hunter's Surrender Bay to name a few). Then there are the bona fide controversial novels like The Shack which elicits all kinds of debate about doctrine while still apparently pulling some people closer to God.
(cont.) I know I've read some CBA novels with which I disagreed with their implied doctrinal points written into the story, but, hey, who cares? Some care rabidly. Others realize we're different in our doctrinal belief systems.
Theology can be restrictive in writing fiction if either an author or a specific publisher requires that kind of direction (i.e. Love Inspired imprint) for the product they produce. But it doesn't have to be.