Do Christian Novelists Need a “Theological Accountability Partner”?

That was the question posed by Dan Balow, President of Enclave Publishing, the premiere press for Christian speculative fiction. In his recent post, Theological Accountability Partners, Balow writes:

Just because an author is a mature Christian, doesn’t mean they are immune from writing something containing shaky theology. In an effort to craft compelling phrases and stories, orthodox theology can sometimes be a casualty of creativity or even carelessness.

The possibility for “shaky theology” is only heightened when applied to speculative novelists. Those who constantly conjecture new worlds and re-imagine old ones are bound to push the boundaries of orthodoxy. And, really, isn’t that what they’re supposed to do? But therein lies the rub.

While most Christian authors and publishers would agree about what constitutes theological orthodoxy, applying that orthodoxy to art and fiction is not nearly as clear-cut.

In my recent workshop at Realm Makers 2016 entitled “A Theology of Speculative Fiction,” I floated a pitch for a theoretical novel called “The Second Judas.” The pitch went like this:

A brilliant scientist, inspired by Satan, travels back in time to persuade Judas to NOT betray Jesus, thus preventing the crucifixion and the redemption of humanity. However, after successfully persuading Judas to abandon his plans, the scientist comes to believe Christ IS the Messiah. In an attempt to fulfill biblical prophecy, the scientist plots to assume the role vacated by Judas, betray Jesus, and reboot the Crucifixion. Until Judas, now a believer, plots to stop the scientist and the betrayal.

Of course, this plot is intentionally crafted to push a lot of boundaries and illustrate the slipperiness of the subject. Nevertheless, the number of possible responses and/or objections to The Second Judas would illustrate the dilemma faced by a “theological accountability partner.”

• Time travel and The Butterfly Effect are not tenable; history cannot be altered
• Only future history can be altered, not past
• ANY extra-biblical portrayals of Christ are not permissible
• God’s purposes cannot be thwarted; it is heretical to speculate alteration of biblical history
• The story is permissible, provided that the Crucifixion occurs
• The story is permissible, provided that Judas still betrays Jesus
• Judas should never be portrayed in a positive / sympathetic light

Please notice that the issue for most Christian novelists would not be theological orthodoxy per se, but to what degree theological orthodoxy should be demanded of their fiction. In other words, being a Christian means believing certain specific things about God and Christ. Being a Christian novelist does not necessarily mean that stories like The Second Judas are categorically untouchable. At the least, there will be a spectrum of beliefs regarding what is theologically tenable (in our fiction) and what isn’t.

Balow acknowledges this, noting that there’s a degree of theological give-and-take between publishers and authors:

A significant function of a traditional Christian publisher is to act as a theological accountability partner to their authors. Of course, some publishers have a very distinct theological bent to their books, while others will have a wider theological spectrum in which they operate. As agents, we spend quite a bit of time sorting out those differences, which can have a significant effect in how we deal with an individual publisher.

Suffice it to say not every publisher would agree with whatever theological stance you might take.

With a traditional publisher, your theological position or main point could even be strongly challenged by an editor. It is part of the collaborative editorial process. (bold, mine)

It is fascinating, but a bit of a sidenote, that Balow suggests that “self-published” novels, because they have not been “reviewed by a trained theological eye,” may be more open to “possible error.” Nevertheless. while part of the “function of a traditional Christian publisher” is to act as a theological gatekeeper, there remains a danger of confusing theological orthodoxy with various publishers’ cultural distinctives. Frankly, many evangelical publishers’ content guidelines are indistinct from their theology, blurring the line between hard-and-fast creedal orthodoxy and cultural preferences. As such, peripheral issues like alternate histories, extraterrestrials, and R-rated content are elevated from “disputable matters” to issues of theological orthodoxy.

Still, art and orthodoxy have a tenuous relationship. While we should vigorously protect the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy, it is quite another issue to label The Second Judas — or its author! — as a purveyor of heresy. My point is not that Christian novelists should dismiss the issue of theology, but that there is no clear-cut principle or interpretation for applying theology to fiction. So by all means, have a theological accountability partner. The main issue, however, may not be conceding the importance of theological orthodoxy, but exactly how that orthodoxy applies to alternate histories, space aliens, and other speculative content.