I guest posted at Speculative Faith last week, and my article Why Fiction is the Wrong Vehicle for Theology garnered some lively, if not predictable, responses. One of my favorite comments was from Melissa Ortega (read it HERE) in which she rattled off “classic novels” that DO contain some heavy theological elements. She writes:
There are few books that sermonize more than Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables or his Hunchback of Notre Dame. Charles Dickens sermonizes a great deal in A Christmas Carol. G.K. Chesterton’s Napolean of Notting Hill is as Free Will vs. Destiny type of story as one can get. And who can forget his Man Who Was Thursday? with its sermon at the end on becoming, ourselves, the Accuser? The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis is an inside-out sermon that preaches on a multitude of sins….from Hell’s point of view, of course. And the Great Divorce steps on very, very specific toes every third paragraph at least.
It’s a great comment. While Melissa is spot on about theological themes in classic Christian lit, her observations also show how far we’ve come in what we call “Christian fiction.”
Many of the books we consider Christian classics could NOT be published in today’s Christian market.
I remember the first time I stumbled upon this phenomenon. I’d just started to pursue a writing career and wanted to familiarize myself with the Christian market. Some of the writers I respected often referenced Flannery O’Connor. I’d never read her and decided to purchase a collection of her short stories. The first Flannery O’Connor story I ever read was “A Good Man is Hard to Find.” It stunned me. Why?
***Spoiler alert ON***
It ends when a shallow, phony Christian woman is faced with her sin — and possibly converted — by being murdered by a psychopath. The Misfit, an escaped convict, shoots her three times, puts the gun down, casually cleans his glasses and says, “she would have been a good woman, if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life.” The End.
***Spoiler alert OFF***
The story seemed so unlike anything I’d read thus far labeled “Christian fiction.” Its “theology” was front and center, but the imagery was so stark and the ambiguity so thick, there’s no way it could find footing amidst the squeaky clean, predictable, bonnets and romance fare that now dominated the Christian market.
(A cursory discussion of “A Good Man is Hard to Find” and possible interpretation in THIS Wikipedia article.)
Anyway, Melissa’s comment made me think of other Christian classics that would have a hard time being published in today’s market. Here’s seven of them:
The Man Who was Thursday is sprinkled with mild expletives like “go to hell” (ch. 9), “damn it all” (ch. 2), and my favorite, “You great fat, blasted, blear-eyed, blundering, thundering, brainless, Godforsaken, doddering, damned fool!” (ch. 10). Such language would never see the light of day in Christian fiction. (Note: Christians abhorrence of even mild language in their fiction is evidence of deeply flawed theology.)
A Christmas Carol‘s primary “biblical” lessons are delivered by… ghosts! And everyone knows that ghosts are really demons, right?
The Great Divorce occurs in a sort of purgatorial limbo. But Christians do not believe purgatory is biblical or that souls in hell might get a second chance to glimpse heaven. So strike this as “biblical.”
The Lord of the Rings — Dr. Ralph Wood, Professor of English at Baylor University and a Tolkien expert, in his wonderful essay, Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings: A Christian Classic Revisited, states that Tolkien, “…called The Lord of the Rings ‘a fundamentally religious and Catholic work.’ Its essential conflict, he insisted, concerns God’s ‘sole right to divine honour’ (Letters, 172, 243).” But despite the author’s stated intent, Wood affirms that “Tolkien’s work is not self-evidently Christian.” In fact, many eschew Tolkien’s classic as “Christian” on the grounds that it employs magic, sorcery, etc. Poor Gandalf.
Dante’s Inferno is divided into three parts: Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. Not only might the horrific imagery find resistance in today’s market, once again, purgatory is a stumbling block for evangelicals. I’m afraid old Dante must ply his wares in the “secular” classics.
A Wrinkle in Time, though containing many “Christian themes,” has been opposed by many Christian parents on the grounds that it teaches New Age philosophy. And, oh, it has witches.
Flannery O’Connor’s works — Not just language, but the incongruous imagery and ambiguity. Like Hazel Motes, lead character in her first novel Wise Blood, a traveling evangelist who spreads the gospel of “anti-religion,” lives with a prostitute (whom he discovers is a nymphomaniac), wraps himself in barbed wire as penance, blinds himself, before killed by an arresting police officer. Signet originally advertised the novel as “A Searching Novel of Sin and Redemption.” Ha! Try selling that to today’s mainstream Christian readers.
So… what’s happened? Why has the Christian market changed so much? Or is it Christian culture that has changed? And can you think of other “Christian classics” that would find a hard time being published in today’s Christian market?
The Christian market hasn’t “changed.” It has been ADDED. There was no “Christian” market when these books were published. “Christian” as a *genre* is a fairly new phenomenon. There used to only be writers who were Christians. Their books got published, period. Not labeled and shunted to the bookstore ghetto.
What has changed is the industry separating, boxing, and labeling books as this and that, Christian and secular. You’re right–in today’s Christian market, these books would not be published. But in the secular market? That’s what I wonder. Or has the secular market decided that anything with a Christian message, no matter how edgy, must be published by the Christian market? And that is how the void between the two markets has been created–the place where books with both a message and with real grit find themselves?
You beat me to the punch line with that one Kat. The counter question that should be asked in this discussion is, “How many of those classics would be accepted by the typical ‘non-Christian’ publisher these days. I can just hear some agent in New York calling up Tolkien up and saying, “Look J.R.R., if you’re going to get on the shelf next to George R.R. you’re going to have to appeal a little more to the demographic. You got all the battle scenes down cold but if you don’t get a little more realistic about what Hobbits do behind closed doors this thing will never sell.”
More and more I am disinterested in CBA, General Market, etc… Call it disillusionment. Call it realism. Call it whatever. Just write the “blundering, thundering” story and then see who’s interested. If no one ever bites then publish it yourself for goodness sakes. Or get a vanity press which essentially is what Herman Melville did when his brother helped him sign a contract with Harper and Brothers. His book deal called for half-the profits after recovery of costs for printing for seven years. According to one source, Melville earned a grand total of $556.37 (less than $16,000 in today’s dollars) for the U.S. edition of Moby Dick (3,215 copies sold). Tate publishing offers a better deal than that and they are definitely a vanity publisher no matter what they say.
Again the point is simple, “Write the story, the way you feel you must write it. Make compromises if you think it is right to. Quit fretting over why CBA publishers won’t buy it.
Truth is, there are CBA novels that have ghosts, demons, sexual indo, and even from time to time mild language. Don’t have time but if any here doubt it I’ll be glad to offer examples. The problem is this – for the most part these just don’t sell well to the CBA market. They know their clients pure and simple. Every time a house branches out, they soon pull back to please that core group that consistently spends money for their product.
Honestly, I could care less if a CBA house would or would not bite on Tolkien. It bothers me more that those who say they hunger for stories like his don’t back that up with their support and dollars.
Tim, your response begs the question. I deeply care about whether or not the Christian market “would or would not bite on Tolkein.” That’s one way we differ. Our response to such literature says lots about how evangelicals have come to define their art. that question really interests me.
Not begging the question but rather raising one of my own. It’s fun to pen everything on Evangelicals and blame this as some modern phenomenon that has ruined the chances of the works like Dickens getting published. It would do well to remember that Dickens wrote in Victorian England and had a difficult time getting Christmas Carol published.
And you wrongly think I don’t care about why Tolkien couldn’t get picked up by a CBA house. It’s just I don’t blame the seller nearly as much as the buyer. Marketing 101 tells you to create something people already want and they will buy it. The CBA marketers are doing their job. It’s we the buyers that aren’t doing ours.
There is simply no reason in the current publishing climate to not be able to nurture a different kind of readership. Virtually unknown writers are doing it every day in the Sci-Fi and Urban Fantasy market at Amazon. The publishing houses don’t hold all the cards any more and they know it.
Tim, I’m with you on not blaming the seller as much as the buyer. The Christian fiction industry is reflective of, and caters to, a specific Christian subculture.
Yep, I’m faster than a speeding bullet, Tim! 🙂
And, bravo for this one: “It bothers me more that those who say they hunger for stories like his don’t back that up with their support and dollars.”
THAT, I’ll tell ya, is a real issue. When we moan and groan and gripe about there being nothing to choose but Amish romance, and then we don’t support the authors who DO write what we’re looking for.
Yes, I know–grit doesn’t make for good writing if *craft* is not there. But there are some awesome novels out there with grit AND craft. It’s a matter of finding them.
I’ll take a moment to list a few:
“Star of Justice” by Robynn Tolbert. (Back me up, Katherine Coble!)
“Demon: A Memoir” and “Havah” by Tosca Lee
Basically anything by Steven James
For realistic romance, “No Other” by Shawna Williams
“Seabird” and “Earthbow” by Sherry Thompson
(Trying to not set the focus on Splashdown Books, which is my publisher, so I only listed one of ours above, but, um….)
My first thought exactly, Kat.
I would like to add to your point about the secular market that most Christian books written today would NEVER have been published back in Dickens day. Most of them do not have enough meat to keep a bird alive, much less a grown adult.
We should not confuse morals and values with Christian principles, although they are very close in nature. Morals and values are determined by society, but biblical principles are absolute, and set by God. Only recently have morals and values slowly slipped and skewed away from biblical principles.
Example: 30 years ago, journalists only reported news which they saw with their own eyes or could find at least 2 witnesses of the event. Today, if it is somewhere on the internet, it is fair game–perhaps fact checked or perhaps not.
What the buying public plunks down their inflated dollars on, gobbles up, and begs for more is what the industry dishes up. Follow the money, it leads to the truth.
Engraved in His palm,
Gina
Actually they would have. The problem is that when we look at the past, we only see the big books and think they are all that was made. If you want bad Victorian Christian literature, Charles Kingsley’s The Waterbabies is a good example. Martha Finely’s Elsie Dinsmore series as well-check out Project Gutenberg, but be ready to wince a lot. Horatio Alger wrote the same novel hundreds of times, and at best was a mediocre writer.
It’s like black and white movies. Everyone thinks of Casablanca, few people think of Bela Lugosi meets a Brooklyn Gorilla. You have to be careful not to romanticize the past.
Yes. Thank you for saying it so well.
Kat, I agree that the overall perception of religion has changed in culture. The thing I’d point out is that these novels continue to sell in the general market. So, apparently, the market isn’t THAT anti-Christian.
I think a huge portion of readers of general market fiction are Christians, for one. Also, these books have established themselves as classics.
I don’t actually think the secular market is THAT anti-Christian. I think, though, it started more with a certain demographic of Christians demanding squeaky-clean, getting what they wanted in the CBA, and now when general market readers read something labeled “Christian” they find it preachy and often poorly crafted — and if it’s not labeled Christian (or they don’t read the da*n description) and has overt Christian themes they cry foul.
It’s more of a hole the Christian market created and put themselves into, imho. And there are a lot of writers out there with less overt work, or even overt, that is published in the secular market. (First one that pops into my head is “Desperation” by Stephen King.) And some of the better CBA books have crossed over…I remember seeing “Demon: A Memoir” by Tosca Lee outside the ghet-I mean, Christian section at B&N :).
Yes! It was the demands for a certain type of fiction that has created this divide.
King’s “Desperation” or some of Anne Rice’s Bible themed stories may not have been published if he wasn’t already an established author. Because of some of these hot stream authors converting and writing openly about it, I think Christian thought is finding its way back into main stream conversation. Nice.
Anne Rice’s Bible-themed stories actually came about when she converted.
It’s hard not to look askance at her “reconversion”, given that it took place at the same time the publishing world was full of news that the only genre selling was “Christian Fiction”/Inspirational, and then after a couple of books in that genre she denounced Christianity once again.
I can’t pass any sort of judgment on whether or not she is saved. She says she is and that’s between her and God. But I do feel like she–and several other authors I know–took advantage of the Christian market back then in the early aughts because it was for awhile the only game in town.
In the same vein I know more than one author being published by Christian publishing houses that started writing Christian fiction solely because it was a better market – not because they actually believed anything they were writing (same goes for the Christian music market). What’s more, I have heard them encouraging others to do so. Made me uncomfortable.
I’ve been a fly on the wall for many of those conversations. When I first came to this blog and saw folks seeming to venerate the Christian publishing industry it drove me nuts. It’s a business like any other and there are a lot of wolves dedicated to fleecing the sheep.
That’s sad, because so many of the artists/authors are genuine.
Evangelicalism happened. “Mystery”, especially about God, is one of the great festering no-nos of the evangelical movement, because it’s conflated with “confusion”. Then you get shot with that 1 Corinthians 14 bullet–and not knowing what an author’s or protagonist’s (or antagonist’s, or minor supporting character’s) belief system is an open running sore of confusion. I mean, mystery. One of those.
Clarity is a good idea if you were in the Council of Chalcedon but it’s going to suck the life out of fiction.
“Evangelicalism happened.” It sure did.
Hear! Hear! Or is that, “Read, Read?”
Modernist, evangelical Christianity has pretty much killed the great dance, the great conversation and literary art. Postmodernism contains a seed of hope…
Mike, thanks again for a great guest post.
I must repeat my response to your original comment over there:
Against presumably silly Christian-fiction rules, there is only one resource: to appeal to correct theology, or rather, correct doctrine based on the Story.
Condemnations against legalism or “we’re not reaching people” don’t cut it. They run smack up against the reactionary yet fair-pointed rebuttals, “Christians are supposed to be different,” or, “Maybe people hate us because of the Name of Christ.” (Also, real “legalism” comes in many different forms, not just instisting on banning things.)
Instead one must say, “That’s interesting, your opposition to characters behaving badly only in certain ways.” Then point out the inconsistencies: “Why do you not also apply this to characters’ shallow statements of faith? Why not a character’s violent acts? Why sell these other Christian classics, yet forbid most newer authors from doing the same?” Then even better, appeal to Scripture: “The Bible never enforces this kind of standard on Christian storytellers, much less even on itself. So where does this ‘rule’ arise?”
Again, ergo: you’ve made an appeal to Biblical and correct theology.
This is distinct from insisting on “systematic theology” in every story, a standard that the Story Prime never endorses specifically or implicitly. (The best comparison is the books of Job and the Psalms. These are founded on truth, yet also reveal true struggles and even moments of “bad theology,” in perspective, such as when writers call out to God in despair, believing He has abandoned them or judges unfairly.)
But all this is based on the crucial question: What is the chief end of a story?
Answering that question Biblically, and then striving to be consistent with that answer, would go a long way toward repairing the nonsense beliefs in many Christian readers.
Stephen, you’re absolutely right. I’m not suggesting less theology. I believe the theology that informs most Christian fiction has a low view of art (mediocre at best), a “touch not, taste not” approach to culture, a simplistic view of holiness (one of the drives behind a “separate” genre altogether), and a narrow, formulaic depiction of the redemptive process. I think the Book of Job is a great example. If taken out of contdxt from the canon of Scripture, the book is ambiguous and theologically murky. Even though it’s inspired!
I find God perplexing and I often find Scripture mystifying, so folks who want theology all nice and neat and clear in fiction, clearly, they have a level of genius above my puny 137 I.Q. I’m often boggled by God.
In the story I’m writing, one of the things at its heart (and I’m not done plotting) is a mystery about what God might or might not do regarding a speculative segment of characters. Can they even be saved? Some might call it blasphemy, but, hey, it fits within the speculative parameters of my created alter-reality. The real God is judge; the real God is merciful. God will part the sea to save X; he will send men with a sword to slaughter an entire city, down to youngest. He will flood a world that vexes Him with its sinfulness; He will die for the same vexing world. He is all powerful and all knowing…but this is the best world He could create with the best outcome? Really? Voltaire’s sarcasm is not lost on me.
The real God confuses the heck outta me. But I absolutely believe He is and, like it or not, understanding it or not, He IS and He loves. He gives me hope. So, if creatures can hope, but not always know, absolutely know, there’s a huge gap for the unknown, the secret things. The what if?
I like when fiction steps into those secret things and surprises me. A bloodthirsty, yet merry, Kris Kringle? A Lucifer with an unexpectedly good motivation that goes wrong? A vampire saint? Yes, why not?
I need to meet your publisher:)
This is one of the great paradoxes of the invention of “Christian” industry. Kat hit it on the head – before this new industry, books were published based solely on their quality, Christian, Freudian, Humanist, whatever. If it was a good work, it was published. The moment the modern evangelical movement decided it needed to “come out from the world and be separate” and have its own books, music, movies, towels, shirts, and even mints, instead of creating a broader venue in which Christian artists could put their works into more hands, they cut us off.
Now, the Christian industry refuses anything too theologically challenging, and sadly, because they exist they have provided secular publishing houses a great excuse not to publish anything too Christian.
On a high note, spiritually challenging fiction IS making its way subversively back into the secular market thanks to the success of the recent LOTR franchise (which never would have been given a go if it weren’t for (ha!) Harry Potter). And there are even Christian publishers popping up with different views on the value of art in relaying the truths of God.
“The play’s the thing; wherein we’ll catch the conscience of the king!”
BTW, happy you mentioned L’Engle. I disagree with her all the time and almost daily thank God she exists. In spite of our theological differences she has drawn me into deeper, richer relationship with Christ in ways I can never fully express. Her books accomplished what a thousand sermons failed to do.
BTW, L’Engle’s difficulties in publishing Wrinkle definitely reflect the change in the market caused by Christian publishers. It was rejected at least 38 times if I remember correctly because it was too religious and, safe to say, it wasn’t the sort of thing Christian publishers would touch with a ten foot pole. While it isn’t at all my favorite of her books, it does represent a struggle for Christian authors that would not have existed if it weren’t for the existence of Christian publishing houses.
Other commenters have essentially covered my thoughts on this subject, so I’ll abstain from adding my own.
On another note: Tolkien wouldn’t be published anywhere today because his books (and most other classics) wouldn’t be “exciting” enough. Plus, LOTR, especially the first book, is a whole lot of people traveling to different places. The chapter at Rivendell alone would turn off 80% of readers. People just don’t have the patience to wait for the action to pick up, or for the drama/tension to build. That’s why every writing how-to book in existence (novel, screenplay, etc.) insists on a strong opening scene, so as to keep the reader/audience from falling asleep or doing something else.
“On another note: Tolkien wouldn’t be published anywhere today because his books (and most other classics) wouldn’t be “exciting” enough.”
True. And in that case Dante’s Inferno most certainly wouldn’t cut the mustard either.
“Tolkien wouldn’t be published anywhere today because his books (and most other classics) wouldn’t be “exciting” enough.”
I’m just not sure I can agree with that, Bobby. Tolkien’s books are still selling. Now they’re major motion pictures, too. So there’s obviously plenty there to entertain the audiences of today.
Mike, the reason they’re selling so well is A) They have an established fan base, built from generations past, who have passed on the works by recommendation and B) Tolkien’s influence of contemporary fantasy writers (Martin, Jordan, Brooks, etc.) is very, very well known. Any person who knows anything about fantasy knows the name Tolkien. His work is considered the “source” of fantasy so naturally any fantasy fan will want to read the “original texts,” so to speak.
The films maintain the spirit of the books, but break from them often to keep the pacing from slogging. Jackson admits this in the extended edition featurettes. If Jackson had filmed the books exactly as they are, mark my words today’s audience would have fallen asleep. The Hobbit’s having that exact problem: reviewers are noting the fact that Jackson seems to have followed closely to the source material and complain that the opening drags for too long.
My point of course is not that Tolkien’s books aren’t entertaining, or that they can’t entertain a reader today, but such readers are not the norm: there’s a reason George RR Martin, author of a fantasy series bathed in sex, violence and cursing, was called “the new Tolkien.”
An addition and a correction:
Pilgrim’s Progress is glaringly missing from this list.
The Man Who was Thursday was written while GK Chesterton was in his pantheistic period. While I always enjoy Chesterton’s rich imaginative style, which shone bright during his early years, I do not consider this a Christian work. It definitely has Christian imagery, much like the Wachowskis’ film The Matrix used biblical imagery, but it uses it for an end other than to present Christian truth.
Thanks for directing me to Flannery O’Connor’s “A Good Man is Hard to Find”!
Matthew, The Man Who Was Thursday was published the same year as Orthodoxy, which is VERY Christian (1908). Why do you describe TMWWT as written during “his pantheistic period.” I found plenty of theological references and allegory.
Kat addressed my first question which was…are we looking at apples and oranges when we compare current Christian fiction market to Christian publishing of the past?
When I hopped over to the link you provided about “A Wrinkle in Time” and the New Age, my brain conjured different questions (or thoughts). I read that book when I was younger and apparently I remember nothing about it because the description of the story rang no bells, although the book no doubt played into my current penchant for spec fic. To accurately assess whether or not I think it contains New Age elements, I’d have to read it again with my current knowledge base to see if it sounds any alarms. After a careful reading would I deem it “Christian” fiction? Maybe. Maybe not.
As writers of “Christian” specfic, I think we have to be careful not to automatically give “Christian” specfic novels a pass for the sake of the genre. (You’ve posted about using discernment while reading Christian fiction. My concern is along those lines.) I recently read a contemporary Christian spec fic novel that took the speculation too far for me because of it’s potential to blur the lines between New Age and Christianity. I kept my concern quiet because of the potential repercussions. In hindsight, keeping my concern quiet may have been a self-serving “genre-idolizing” thing to do, so I’ll need to rethink my motives.
You’ve asked this many times: “What is Christian fiction?” and the question resonates now. When we call something “Christian” the world thinks it’s “safe” when that may or may not be the case. Just because tons of Christians love “Lord of the Rings” (for instance) that doesn’t mean I should drop my guard when I read it. If I were to do a thorough reading and analysis of the series, I may come up with some items that are spiritually troubling to me regardless of the fact that many Christians think the series is the best thing since sliced bread.
Bottom line (and not entirely related to your post), Christian specfic authors *can* take it too far. I’m trying to remain humble to that fact, lest I begin to get over-confident in my own wisdom.
Jessica, I think there’s a huge difference between sound doctrine in our doctrine and sound doctrine in our fiction. Fiction just cannot contain or articulate theology sufficiently. Jamming stories through theological sieves is like entering a giraffe in the dog show. It’s got four legs, a tail, two eyes, and one nose. But, I’ll be darned, that neck and those spots just don’t look right. Yes, we should never drop our guard against any cultural ware, especially those impregnated with messages. But at do you really want to banish Gandalf because sorcery was categorically condemned in Scripture?
I guess I’m at a point where, if God wanted to banish Gandalf, I wouldn’t argue. (Not that arguing would make a difference.) Just because I find something enlightening or entertaining doesn’t mean God endorses it. Who am I to say what stories God likes and what He doesn’t like. That being said, God can use anything to bring the lost to Himself, including the seemingly benign arrows of satan.
WISE BLOOD was published in secular periodicals in segments before being published by Signet. No Christian houses there. I would bet all those other classics were published by “regular” houses.
I do think the hostility to traditional Christianity is real, and it affects publishers. In modern SF, you’ll more likely get something published with atheist gay protagonists than with Evangelical ones. It’s the way it is. The Christian authors who are published and lauded tend to be subtler, much subtler, than they would have been allowed to be 50 years ago.
In the fifties and sixties, romance novels likely didn’t have gynecological exams for sex scenes. Now, they routinely do. So, if Christian women who enjoy romances, but don’t want to be tempted by pages and pages of pornographic love scenes, found a haven with the Inspirational lines. Things come to be because there is a market for them.
I think rather than looking at classics and bewailing that CBA wouldn’t publish it now, we should worry more about how anti-Christian (traditional Christian, not “move with it now, accept everything, no sin anymore” Neo-Christian) the genre fiction arena can be. I remember 15 years ago having a debate cause folks thought it was annoying that there were Christianized romances. I made the point that unless it was a Medieval or somesuch, romances tended to be functionally atheistic–God and prayer and religious life was, if present, a passing thought. Had no impact on characters. Whereas in real life. many, many folks are impacted by some form of religion–Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, HIndi, etc. And made decisions based on it. My point was that the atheist romances were less real than the Christian ones in that respect; whereas the Christian ones were less real in how they approached desire, human lust for the loved one.
I think it’ll only get worse for Christians who are orthodox/evangelical and want to express that openly in the writing. The ABA will sneer at us, and want that part boxed or upended (hey, if you make the religious person vile, that’s fine). And the CBA will box parts of us, and frustrate.
I’d love to see you list and bring up the books that somehow make it, the crossover or ABA-published Christian stories that pass muster and get to readers. Game?
Great comment, Mir.
People tend to forget that Christian fiction came about in large part because no general market publisher was publishing anything remotely Christian. Fiction had a decidedly nihilist, angst-driven bent, with little hope or mention of God.
I wonder why this idea persists that Christian houses would be so closed to indisputably Christian works today. I mean Pilgrim’s Progress, Matthew?
I’m currently reading a story about shape-shifter (from animal to “human”) faeries, published by Bethany House–one of the more “conservative” evangelical publishers. Why do we think they’d balk at other fantasy that tells the truth?
Becky
Ooh! What book is it, Becky?? The faerie one, that is. 🙂
Kat, it’s Starflower by Anne Elisabeth Stengl. It’s the third book in the Tales of Goldstone Woods series. It has (like a lot of Bethany fantasies) a girlie/romantic cover, but it’s as much about a male faerie as it is about Starflower, Here’s a little sample. This is from a scene in which Eanrin, the aforementioned male faerie, is trying to find a name for the mute woman he has rescued:
The next book is Dragonwitch–with an impressive cover, I think.
BTW, the CSFF Blog Tour is featuring Starflower this month, so you can find out what readers think of it. It’s actually a prequel to the first two books in the series, so it’s a good one to jump into if you want to try it.
Becky
Thanks, Becky! I’m gonna check it out :).
“People tend to forget that Christian fiction came about in large part because no general market publisher was publishing anything remotely Christian. Fiction had a decidedly nihilist, angst-driven bent, with little hope or mention of God.”
Really? There were no Christians writing in the late ’70’s? All nihilistic and godless? What were Christian writers doing? Do you have any evidence of this? I think Jay is right. The rise of Christian fiction coincides with the rise of evangelicalism. Even IF publishers were anti-Christian, wouldn’t it have been wiser to be salt and light, find a way to influence culture than retreat into the hermitage?
I always thought the rise of the separate Christian marketplace was the equal and opposite reaction to the sixties. You know, the Larry Norman era. Christian art was not the “thing” so it went to it’s own place. It may have been necessary at the time but then caused it’s own subsequent problems.
My parents owned a Christian bookstore in the 70s and it was a radical thing to do at the time. The Christian music and books in there were considered very edgy by the Christian community at large. My dad even got fired for playing “wild” music by the Rambos on a Christian radio station. One of the proudest moments of his life. Ha
Yeah, as somebody who worked in the field on several levels I gotta say that CF didn’t happen because “we were pushed out of the mainstream” at all. There were many Christians actively published by secular publishers, C.S. Lewis among them.
CF happened because of Evangelicalism, separateness, The Jesus People USA movement, Larry Norman, The Way cult and its publishing arm and other cults like Tony Alamo and the LDS Deseret Book who showed churches that they could make money by publishing what was then called Religion /Religious Interest titles. If you’re looking to blame somebody, don’t blame the “regular publishers” who still published religious titles in their general list. Look toward The Baptist Sunday School Board (now lifeway), Cokesbury and the cults.
Well, since I was a newborn in 74 and mostly only remember plaid pants, orange carpet, and Reba Rambo’s affinity for white, my recall is slippery. Larry Norman seemed, in retrospect, counterculture to me, but then I was too young during all that was happening to know what they were countering. I’ve always just sort of guessed. I do remember reading and being emotionally scarred by Jack T. Chick tracts in my parent’s store for a while. Thankfully, when they got really over the top, my dad stopped carrying them. Something about Christian media seemed exciting at the time. My parents were mavericks. They even played “cow pasture pool” and occasionally went to movies. They were somewhere in between the ultra liberal and ultra conservative, but were friendly to all. I just remember a lot of excitement from Christians in their circle that discovered there was different (Jesus centered) music they could listen to besides Southern Gospel or something different they could read than – what were those Christian romance novels? the ones where all the “bad girls” wore makeup? – yes, those.
It’s really fascinating to me to hear about it from folks who have a better handle on it. When it comes to the birth of the Christian industry, mostly I’m just guessin.
Mike, I said no one was publishing Christian stories, not that there were no writers.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you speak of the “rise of evangelism.” Largely after WWII there was a decline in “main stream” churches. Does evangelical churches not declining constitute a rise?
From Wikipedia:
Bethany really launched Christian fiction in the 1970s when they published Janette Oke, who happened to write stories about Christian women in prairie settings. Then in the 80s Frank Peretti came along.
My first Christian writers’ conference was in the 80’s, and many of the instructors had been at the business for a number of years, but the Christian publishing industry, as far as fiction was concerned, was in its infancy.
I still have this odd idea that people should read the Christian fiction that’s being produced today before making categorical statements about it. But I guess that’s just me. 😉
Becky
Yes, Becky, if the Pilgrim’s Progress had not already been written, I think it would have a hard time in our current market. But then, I could be wrong. 🙂
I’m currently reading Not A Fan (Teen Edition), by Kyle Idleman, in which he challenges us to be followers of Jesus, not merely fans who know all the facts but have no personal relationship, no concept of sacrificing or giving up control of our/their own lives to follow.
As I’ve been reading, it strikes me that many of the characters in Christian novels are fans, not followers. But is this because the Christian fans don’t want books that are too preachy, or is our Western society full of fans because Christian fiction doesn’t challenge us to become followers?
Rather than weighing in on this argument, I’ll just say this post made me nostalgic for some good Christian stories. However, I’m afraid I’ll find that some of my childhood favorites such as Flannery O’Connor just aren’t as good as they used to be. I found that I didn’t appreciate Madeleine L’Engle nearly as much as an adult. Her “theology” strikes me as more gnostic than Christian, and it kind of creeps me out. I wanted to shoot myself in the head (not really) long before I ever finished rereading Many Waters, for example.
Speaking of A Wrinkle of Time and the witches therein (which isn’t necessarily what you were speaking of, but my brain is still a bit off track)…I don’t understand…if a Christian puts witches in their novel, why do they balk when other Christians question it. We *should* question it. Doesn’t mean we make a blanket statement that all books with witches in them are of the devil, but as a Mom it does make me desire to teach my children how to differentiate between a bad good witch and a good bad witch. I mean, see how confusing it can become? To the point where it’s sort of ridiculous.
I don’t censor my kids’ books at at all, but the only reason I saw a connection between Madeleine L’Engle and gnosticism was because I’d decided to read my daughters’ copies of L’Engle’s books at the same time I happened to be studying gnostic texts. It was one of those bizarre coincidences (or not) because my eldest daughter stopped reading L’Engle when I mentioned the queerness of her theology. As I discovered later, L’Engle had all kinds of ties to weird, creepy stuff such as being involved with the Temple of Understanding (theosophy=Luciferianism=gnosticism), and ran in the same circles as Elaine Pagels. None of this means that L’Engle wasn’t a Christian, but it may mean she lacked discernment. In any case, I don’t actually believe in coincidence, and for whatever reason, God sent me a warning signal in the case of my daughter (that’s the way I perceive it, anyway). Books don’t have any power over us per se, but they do have the power to influence our thoughts. So, in general, I agree with what you’re saying. We should be concerned, and spiritual things can become very confusing. I think where we err is in entirely declaiming authors and books for all Christians at all times (like the anti Harry Potter bandwagon). The opposite is also annoying, when we call Christians idiots for following their consciences.
She does have queer theology. As much as I like a lot of her books, I don’t recommend them to very many people. Her theology is not very far from George MacDonald’s, whose similar Christian Universalism approach (which is the category I place her in) influenced a lot of authors who also disagreed with him. Likewise, a lot of people won’t read C.S. Lewis because of his adoration of his friend, the Luciferian Charles Williams.
And although I love L’Engle’s books for reasons similar to Lewis’ loving MacDonald’s books, I don’t ever call her books “Christian” books to those I recommend them to – nor do I think of them that way. While they have value to me, I am often kerflummoxed that her books are labeled as Christian classics. It’s that whole “label” problem again.
Ironically, the best book I’ve read for children in warning them of the dangers of reading books in isolation without the guidance of a discerning grown up is J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Just googled Elaine Pagels. Explains a LOT!
George MacDonald also employed a lot of gnostic symbolism. One could also interpret his work through Jungian symbolism, but Jung didn’t call himself a Christian. Jung was a pagan. Yes, Charles William was a Luciferian. I don’t know why people consider him a Christian author. Interestingly, Tolkien didn’t like Williams, and he also kept his distance from Lewis. I know the two were friends, but Lewis was a lot more loyal to Tolkien than Tolkien was to Lewis (or so I gather from Tolkien’s biography). I don’t know what my point is, here, except an acknowledgement that fantasy and magic can be tricky, and I can understand why Christians are leery of it and why it’s a hard sell in the Christian pub market.
I’m not sure Williams is a Luciferian. I’ve read his books, and he does seem to be sort of an uneasy fusion between an esoteric mystic in the Theosophian bent and a Christian, but I don’t see aspects of that philosophy in the novels. The one’s I’ve read feel more like he’s some form of alchemist, chasing esoteric secrets to obtain knowledge of spiritual reality, and thankfully he ended up in Christianity.
However, the esoteric side of him predominates, and I think you’re right to worry about him. It’s hard to enjoy his books at times because of it, and I disliked them when I read and reviewed them.
With McDonald I think the problem is that Christian Universalism can resemble the whole Jesus/Jehovah=Demiurge conflict that Gnostic Christianity has without being it. I’d be interested in what imagery he uses, as I only know the basics of Gnosticism as a philosophy and very little of any imagery or symbolism.
I’d say that Williams is pretty much a textbook Luciferian. There is way too much emphasis put on the Inklings by modern Christians who see Lewis as a sort of substitutionary Jesus. “He was friends with them so they MUST be doctrinally sound.”
Gnosticism has great appeal to intellectuals and many of the Inklings set were far more Gnostic in their interpretation of Christianity than your average person suspects.
The fact that Williams was for many years in the Fellowship of the Rosy Cross and is alleged to have been a member of Crowley’s Order of the Golden Dawn should give anyone pause.
Yeah, I can see the esoteric influence in his writing, but I didn’t really see in the books the aspects of theosophy that Luciferianism is defined as having. At least as the wiki defines it, as it’s pretty sparse. My guess is that he repented of that kind of mysticism, but it still dominated his thinking.
I agree there’s a bit too much focus on the Inklings for comfort, but there’s a very profitable Christian cottage industry in writing about them. Another way the market needs shaking up.
Another note to add to what you’ve said: Lewis loved Lord of the Rings, but Tolkien hated Chronicles of Narnia.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. While I may feel safe in reading some fantasy, I don’t bash other Christians who don’t. I think their caution is completely understandable. I tend to apply 1 Corinthians 8 here – which is a topic I know Mike has blogged about before.
Stupid question: What do you guys mean that Charles Williams was Luciferian? It sounds super conspiratorial… especially if he was hob-nobbing with one of Christianity’s OGs, CSL.
I agree, some of this stuff sounds like conspiracy theories, but at the same time if you trace the Christian (in quotes?) influences back to their original inspiration, there’s often a spiritist or some other type of occult influence at the root, which is unsettling. It’s also unsettling to realize how pervasive some of these spiritual ideas are and how they are able to penetrate Christian circles because of their subtlety. They sound benign, but are a micro shift in the truth that causes all the ideas that flow from them to be off course.
And, yes, everything I just said sounds weird even to myself. It would be all too easy to get wrapped up in the details to the point of becoming absolutely paranoid, but rather than focus on those, I try to let it reinforce how important it is to put on the spiritual armor as Paul says, and to remember that God always ultimately uses satan’s wiley ways to achieve His own higher purposes.
The Luciferians are a group that are not as prominent as they used to be, but there are still some out there. That’s why you want to be careful whenever you hear/read people praise “The Lord Of Light” or “The power of the Light” (as in Madonna’s children’s books and the new “Kabbalahists” of the Kabbalah Centre.)
They believe that Lucifer is not Satan but the maligned “Bringer of Light”, that he is reviled by Christianity for his Prometheus role in bringing fire and light to mankind. The central tenant to Luciferianism, though, is the “pursuit of hidden knowledge.” They believe that God is not clear in the traditional scriptures and that true faith is found by digging through those scriptures for the Actual Truth–that Lucifer is the “real” saviour of Mankind because Lucifer brought fire.
Like I said, I’m a Christian Mystic and these people pervert the Mystery by making it mean something different than it does in its purest sense. God communicates with us in pure truth and is not deceptive.
Charles Williams was very much a fusionist mystic, mixing his Christianity with symbols and rites he valued from his time in Golden Dawn and Rosy Cross. Williams practiced Rites of Magick even after his acceptance of Christianity because he believed that they underscored his faith.
Interesting. Katherine, are there some reputable sources to research William’s Luciferian connections?
Mike, not everything is a conspiracy theory. Williams was listed as a member of the Golden Dawn. This doesn’t mean he kept that membership or didn’t become a Christian. It just means he’s suspect.
Williams was in the order of the Golden Dawn (and yes, Jill is correct about Tolkien’s caution about him) but did eventually leave that particular Luciferian cult. They were very third eye, secret society. Lewis did not agree with William’s beliefs at all but found them at least theologically stimulating. He was of course glad that Williams departed from those beliefs. I can at least hold hands with Lewis in saying that reading what these different societies believe has been elightening to me – not in that it has shed light on the Gospel itself but on how different people view the Bible stories in a totally different context than I do. It has made me more aware of what they’re thinking as I use certain language and imagery in communicating with them. This is the sort of stimulation I think Lewis took from the relationship as well as just a general sharpening of his own understanding of Scripture from having it so often presented to him at new angles. That Hideous Strength and much of what’s in it is really a direct result of his relationship with Williams – and knowing that explains so much about that book!
Tolkien and Lewis were incredibly close. Their falling out really began after the introduction of Joy Gresham into Lewis’ life – not because Tolkien disliked her but because Jack had never been as understanding of Tolkien’s own relationship with his beloved wife, valuing friendship higher – but when he met Joy, everything changed (hence, the book, The Four Loves) and Tolkien felt a little hurt – a little as if Lewis was being hypocritical. In other words, Lewis had been hard on him for choosing his wife over his friends, but when Joy came along, Jack changed and I’m not sure he ever fully acknowledged this to Tolkien personally (although The Four Loves as much as does so). Their final departure was simply that Lewis ultimately rejected the Catholic Church. Tolkien was patient with him as a convert but really believed he’d come round in the end. When Lewis asked him to write an introduction for, I think it was, Letters to Malcolm in which he openly critcizes the Catholic theology, he was hurt and flat out refused. They were, however, always friends. If they had not been as close as they were, we never would have had Narnia or Lord of the Rings.
Only if you consider professors at Oxford and Cambridge to be reputable sources. Tolkein himself called Williams “that witch-doctor”.
The Inklings: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams and their friends by Humphrey Carpenter (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1979)
Ashenden, Gavin. Charles Williams: Alchemy and Integration. Kent State University Press, 2007
I know that many people don’t consider RC Historian Charles Coulombe to be “reputable” but I think his scholarship in this area is thorough and well-done. He’s also one of the foremost modern experts on the intersection between Roman Catholicism and Hermeticism.
http://charlescoulombe.blogspot.com/2011/09/hermetic-imagination-effect-of-golden.html
(an aside: Coulumbe’s _Literature of Wonder_ is a magnificent book about Fantasy and Roman Catholicism.)
What’s funny is that when I read her books as a kid, the theology except for a vague sense of Christianity completely washed over me. It’s funny because I remember loving A Swiftly Tilting Planet, and when I reread it as an adult, I wondered if I had somehow just hallucinated the book I thought I read instead of what was actually out there.
I find your comment very interesting. I’m approaching L’Engle with some caution based on her supposed endorsement of “The Message” Bible translation, but I’d need to verify the endorsement. Based on what you’ve said, though, my caution may be warranted.
I’ve been doing some internal mental wrestling with the notions of “If it’s partly true, and partly lie, it’s 100% lie” versus “If it contains some truth and some lie, we can still obtain value from the text by extracting the truth from the lie”. I’m not sure if those notions can coexist and if so, how. And how much weight should we put on an author’s endorsements and their circle of influence, if it happens to be broad, or in some instances, troubling?
My apologies to Mike for hijacking his blog comments to go on loosely related tangents today…
Supposedly, Billy Graham endorsed the Message Bible, too. But I have no original source quotes for either of those suppositions. The Message Bible is sick and wrong, though. Sorry, Mike (for changing the subject).
(I wonder if Billy Graham did or if his marketing machine did…the same machine that changed his site pre-election. Either way would be cause for concern, but for different reasons.)
How so. The Message Bible shouldn’t be read in isolation, but how is it sick and wrong? It’s brought many people closer to the Father.
It profanes the sacred. It offers glib paraphrasing that omits deeper theological truths.
The heresies that are in the Message Bible (which is not a translation but one man’s theologically-suspect paraphrase) are listed numerous places. Just google “problem with message bible” and you’ll get reading for several afternoons.
No apologies needed. I too find this subject fascinating, and will probably blog on it. I happen to find the Bible full of mysticism and wonder whether the line between “orthodox mysticism” and “unorthodox mysticism” is as fine as you guys would like to draw it.
I would think nearly everything ever published by a Christian writer (outside the Bible) contains an percentage of error. An error is far different thing than a “lie.” Paul the Apostle readily gleaned ideas from clearly pagan writers that were true and some of them are now even integrated into the Biblical text. The phrase “In Him we live and move and have our being” is extracted from a poem written by a pagan worshipping Zeus. But if it is now inerrant Scripture, who wrote it first? The bottom line is that there is no truth separate from Christ and, for me, at least the Biblical texts are the measure. Everything outside – no matter how Christian the person is or even their intentions when writing – are errant and discerning extraction of truth from “not exactly true” etc is going to be required. I for one don’t have an expectation that Christians be Biblically perfect – only that they attempt to be. That they care.
When I think of people like L’Engle I immediately think of the conversation Lewis has with MacDonald in The Great Divorce. He acknowledges MacDonald’s influence but both vocalize how MacDonald’s universalist ideas had been incorrect. For one, I hope this conversation will be possible to have with L’Engle. I just don’t know. In the end, perfect thoughts about every aspect of God’s story aren’t the thing which saves us – it’s recognizing and surrendering to the Lordship of Christ.
So while I learn a lot from writers outside of Scripture, the very fact that I’m reading around outside of Scripture means I always have my guard set on high.
Wise words, Melissa. I think I’m at a place where I’m realizing how important discernment is, and how much trickier it is than I’d realized, which is disconcerting. It’s one of those moments when the world suddenly looks different. Christians I once trusted, I no longer know if I can trust. I don’t know quite what to make of it. Part of the brain wants to push this new perspective away and retreat, but I sense that path leads to uber-liberalism which at some point ceases to be Christianity or to it’s opposite, fundamentalism and constant fear. I don’t want either.
Jill, (p.s.) the mysticism of the gnostic gospels is a good example of the mysticism I find myself increasingly turning my nose up at. These supposedly enlightened people (past and present) always come to the same conclusions, which share curious similarities with New Age spirituality. Blah blah blah. Either you believe in the New Age Christ or the Christ of the Bible (the current cannon, no extraneous gospels). There’s a reason those gospels were left out of the cannon…they are logically incompatible… There are no “secret” “hidden” messages! That’s the oldest lie in the book (i.e. Genesis)! Grrrr. (Sorry, just read Googled Elaine Pagels. Humans frustrate me.)
As a professed mystic I get very angry at the Gnostics corrupting the Mystery of Christianity with their contortions.
Yes to both of you. That’s why I find the Message Bible so repulsive. Okay, I’m done here. 🙂
Jill, I’m looking for some examples. Thanks
Do you want examples of why the Message Bible is repulsive to me as a Christian? Are you aware that you can find this Bible paraphrase all over the internet for free, giving you the opportunity to do your own research? The Message Bible purports to be a modern version that’s readily understood. It’s not. It’s convoluted and chatty. I don’t doubt that it’s brought people closer to God (and I sincerely hope the Christian God) because God is amazing that way. However, the Message shies away from Christ’s divinity at every opportunity. It removes the word “grace” at least in one known instance when grace is connected to Christ (I haven’t read the whole Message Bible, just bits and pieces). Many people have criticized it because the author went out of his way to remove the concept of the Holy Spirit–I have no proof of this, however, because, as I said, I haven’t read the entire book. It removes the promise of eternal life from John 3:16 and blasphemes Christ’s prayer to his father by both reducing it to silliness, as well as adding a famous hermetic phrase–a phrase common to Wicca and Satanism–in place of Christ’s actual words (“As above, so below” in place of “Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”). Here is the text of the Lord’s prayer from the Message:
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best —
As above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.
I find this prayer to be disturbing for multiple reasons, just one being that it makes Christ’s words more difficult to understand. What exactly does “keep us forgiven” mean? Forgiven by whom? It is much less precise than “Forgive us.” The Message uses this kind of slippery language all over the place. Is slippery, convoluted phrasing really easier for a modern audience to understand? Thank God he is greater than pastors who think it’s really cool to throw Wiccan enchantments in the Lord’s Prayer. And, no, I don’t believe it was an accident. Eugene Peterson is far too educated to have done this accidentally.
I don’t have any particular bias toward one translation over another. I’m not a KJV–only Christian. But reading this Bible literally causes my gut to wrench and prickles to stand up on the back of my neck. If you prefer this translation–fine. It’s not my place to judge people who seek after God’s word. I would just ask that you use your wisdom, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit when you do.
Whoa. I have to say that I’m literally NAUSEATED at seeing “as above, so below” in the Lord’s Prayer.
THAT IS A WICCAN CHANT, PURE AND SIMPLE.
What’s next? “Hail, oh Bringer Of Light!” ??
Yes, it nauseates me, too. I have an instant repulsion for this Bible, which should NEVER be the case with the word of God.
My thoughts exactly.
Katherine, I’d be interested in learning sometime why you call yourself a professed mystic, and what that means to you. However, probably shouldn’t further hijack Mike’s thread with that discussion.
Everyone has covered the ground I would cover here.
There are a buttload of classics in all genres–not just “Christian”–that wouldn’t get published today. Books are products of their times. Our times are our own fault. We drew the arbitrary line in the sand with General Commerce when we commoditized the Gospel and branded Grace.
I love this comment.
Kat H. for the win, IMO.
The fact that we’re discussing this, combined with the strong suspicion Mike’s original post is accurate, betrays the sad, sad state of affairs in the industry and culture. It’s bloody depressing, in fact.
Thanks, Patrick :).
One reason these wouldn’t be published today is because they represent fiction that isn’t “christian” – because (imo) there is no such thing as Christian fiction.
http://blogginoutloud.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-such-thing-as-christian-art.html
To Mike’s main point, I think this is where we really need some kind of Christian artist manifesto. I can’t really disagree with his point, although there’s some here that needs qualifying. Dante in particular wouldn’t get published because the Christian market doesn’t do poetry, and even the secular market is hard-pressed to make a profit on it. (By the way, please buy modern poetry! It needs all the help it can get.) A Christmas Carol is closer to the Shack than you think. But yeah, I think most of us agree in some sense that the CFM is pretty narrow and the books aren’t cutting it.
But at some point, there needs to be positive steps taken. I wonder what forms of attack readers and writers should take to address this? I wish someone would write a manifesto for us to offer solutions and rally us.
Forms of attack? IMO, a hard smack to the wallet is the only thing that makes industry pay attention.
Interesting post by Shawn Coyle over at Steven Pressfield’s blog: (http://www.stevenpressfield.com/2012/11/monetizing-slush/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pressfieldblog+%28Steven+Pressfield+Blog%29)
Basically S&S and Random House have figured out there’s gold in them thar self-publishing hills, and are hoping to wring nickels out of the aspiring and unsuspecting.
CBA/ABA will come a-knocking when gritty faith spec-fiction starts making $$. I think Splashdown and Marcher Lord Press have tapped the genre’s viability, but the industry is behind the curve. Our conversations here are a pretty eloquent testimony (may not always ‘eloquent’ but… ) to the market’s sea-change. So attack-wise, while those industry folks get up to speed, writers can hone their craft while readers spread the word.
Self-pub/Marketing technology being what it is these days, the funny thing is that by the time the Suits realize what’s happening, we might not need them anymore.
So let’s see, the two largest CBA publishers, Thomas Nelson and Zondervan are owned and overseen by Harper Collins who is in turn owned by News Corp. And this makes them “Christian” publishers how?
I have a strong suspicion that makes publishers like Nelson and Zondervan even less likely to respond to anything we as Christian writers have to say about this matter one way or the other. Back to the original premise – the one thing that will get print houses to pay attention is the dollar.
Sorry, I forgot that I shouldn’t identify myself as a Christian writer. Okay, I’m a writer who happens to be a Christian. Still somewhat mystified by this parsing of terms.
Ah yes, that oft-quoted C.S. Lewis plea for less Christian writers and more good writers who are Christian.
Were any of the writers on your list ‘Christian’ in the sense of being Evangelical Christians? Tolkien, Dante and O’Connor were Catholics and Lewis was an Anglican. I remember reading years ago in Writer’s Market a load of ‘Christian’ publishers saying they wanted fiction of the quality of C. S. Lewis’s work. I wondered if they remembered that Lewis was writing for the mainstream market and not for Evangelicals (since he wasn’t one).
I believe the Evangelical Christian fiction publishers started off trying to publish fiction for the type of Christians who grew up in churches where reading novels was a sin just like owning a pack of playing cards or dancing. Evangelical fiction publishers today are trying to reach a similar select group of Evangelical readers.
There are still some Christian authors being published by the secular publishers, though many are Catholic or Episcopalian or Lutheran or LDS (Mormon) and thus don’t count as ‘Christian’, at least not when ‘Christian’ is code for ‘Evangelical Christian’. I think it is those authors who might be fairly compared to Lewis and Tolkien and the rest, as they are the ones writing for general audience.
“Evangelical fiction publishers today are trying to reach a similar select group of Evangelical readers.”
This! Yes. “Christian fiction” to me is a misnomer. But this makes sense–“Evangelical fiction.” That seems more descriptive of what you find in the Christian bookstores and Christian section of the big bookstores. The purpose of most “Christian” books that I’ve seen–the ones that I think make people rather gun-shy of the genre–are the ones that seem centered around a conversion story. The whole purpose, whether there is mystery, romance, whatever as the surface story, is to show the transformation of a main character from non-believer to believer. Hence so many accusations of “preaching to the choir” because who’s reading these books? Do we really think they’re mostly getting into the hands of people who are not Christian? Or are they more being read by Evangelicals who really love a good conversion story?
And….that is why I defend the genre. It’s an arrow created for a specific target. It’s hitting its mark. Those of us not writing Evangelical fiction need to stop trying to wrest control of the bow. We have our own targets to reach. (Oy, that analogy is either very good or really stupid, and my week so far has left me unable to tell the difference, so my apologies if…)
Hm. “Evangelical fiction.” I like that. Then maybe my struggle is in wanting “Evangelical fiction” to be more “Christian.” Or “Christian fiction” to be less “Evangelical.”
In that light, I do know one of the greatests mysteries of all to C.S. Lewis was that his writings were accepted by evangelicals. In all honesty, if it had not been for Mere Christianity, I’m not sure they would have been.
And Lewis did write for the mainstream market, but essentially his motivation was, in the strictest sense of the word, evangelical. He wanted to baptize children’s minds and imaginations with good theology so their hearts would be more open to receiving the Gospel. At least that was Narnia. Many of his other works were just his Christian “take” on secular novels that he enjoyed. He saw something worth redeeming in Phantom of the Opera, and as a result we got Til We Have Faces. He enjoyed The Voyage to Arcturus and John Carter of Mars and we got Dr. Elwin Ransom. He was sort of the originator of the trend of taking something secular and making a Christian version of it. Granted, TWHF is still metaphorical and set in a pagan world – his Beowulf, so to speak – and The Space Trilogy is rife with difficulties – so they aren’t exactly like those Christian t-shirts that modify some famous logo to read a Scripture or something. Still, I do think that Tolkien and Lewis were evangelically motivated – their whole philosophy of making it “past watchful dragons” suggests this. However, they weren’t evangelical fundamentlists and that’s what makes them and their books very different. Chesterton was fundamentally Catholic and made no bones about it.
Til We have Faces is based on the Psyche legend which mutated to Beauty and the Beast. He takes the viewpoint of the jealous sister.
Yes it is, but it is also a reclaiming of Phantom of the Opera – which is a Freudian retelling of Psyche and Cupid. Raoul, who tells Christine to distrust the “Angel” who visits her in the night, and Orual have the same name – the letters are just rearranged. Also, the Phantom and Orual share the trait of having their ugliness masked. With TWHF, Lewis undoes the Freudian darkity of Phantom by restoring the original story of Psyche and Cupid is which the Angel is real, and redeems it by layering even deeper Christian metaphor.
Phantom is a Freudian view of Psyche’s relationship to God – making Pysche the Beauty and God the Beast – TWHF restores the story, making God the Beauty and man, the Beast.
The connection was only made by a very young student a few years ago who shared her paper at Belmont University’s Past Watchful Dragon seminar to the gasps of some of the greatest Lewis scholars in the world. It was kind of awesome. Of course, her view was more of a Plato connection which drew the two stories together – but I think the Freudian connection is there as well. Much of what Lewis did was an undoing of the Freudian trend in literature at the time. Which is why I love him.
Love C.S. Lewis and would like to talk to him about the inspiration for the character of Orual. For those who point out that he takes the viewpoint of Orual, may I most respectfully say; her actions of jealousy and the resulting devastations are clearly condemned and yet, she is afforded grace, love, honor and respect – even glory. I for one, am thankful that we do not always get justice.
Huh. Something to think about.
This is the first time I’ve read this blog, and what an introduction! Thank you, all, for the comments as well. Listening to you, I feel as if I’ve come home!
I’m a writer who is a Christian (formerly a trad-pub, now an indie) venturing from my challenging world of children’s books into a world that is no less difficult: “Christian” fiction.
I look forward to the next blog, and the next, and to hearing more from all of you.