|
Post by dizzyjam on Oct 11, 2009 3:00:21 GMT -5
This post has the potential to be controversial, so be forewarned. Even so, I hope you find it very thoughtful as you read it through to the end. It is drawn from my observations over time of how we as Believers in Christ pick and choose our fiction and what we will and will not read, as well as what we will and will not write. This can easily translate also to what we listen to or create musically as you will see momentarily. Shortly after midnight this morning I had the chance to listen to a podcast on Jake Chism's Fiction Addict website called Reader Expectations - fictionaddict.com/category/podcast/In this podcast Eric Wilson of The Jerusalem's Undead trilogy and Robin Parrish of The Dominion trilogy were featured. Jeff Gerke has interviewed both of them in his ongoing series of interviews of authors writing in the Christian speculative market. One of the things one of them brought up that the other agreed to was that they choose not to have sex or cursing in their novels, yet they have no qualms about violence as long as it "has a purpose". Yet some would go so far as to not include violence either. In this same interview they talked about stretching the boundaries that Christian readers have and how Christian readers are squeamish about the things they do in their novels, yet when other writers do these other things they have a problem. Why is it that as Christians, when Jesus tells us to "judge not, lest ye be judged" we are consistently so judgemental, yet we don't want to be judged our own selves? Consider a discussion on another forum I frequent: A band I've been listening to for a long time had a particularly hard time in the U.S. when they first got started in the early nineties and as a result still have a hard time to this day even though in Europe they were a big hit. In the early nineties their first album was banned from Christian bookstores because of one line of lyric on a song that is clearly a Biblical song. See for yourself and decide which line of lyric may have been the line: Legion Legion moves over the land Softly he whispers, his forces command Naked she lies on the crucifix crying The tears of the innocent die The dragon slides between her thighs The dragon breathes the fire As blood drips from her eyes Until delivered of the child And as the leaders of the nations follow single file And all the brothers of the legion drift upon the Nile To face the beast in all its ecstasy And dreams of our betrayal As love will die within the force That drains it from the grail She drinks the blood of the prophets And she drinks the blood of the saints Between her legs they crawl in torment For the souls they lay to waste Upon the altar, the sacrifice begins The dragon takes another, and feeds upon his sins To live and breathe again Under the night, under the liar Into the night, into the fire Is this the coming of the day? As the alliance of the dragon takes its prey Is this the call of revolution? Is this the fall of revolution of the soul? Is this the cry from all corruption? Or is corruption just a fortress we bestow? And if you are looking for the answer And if you are looking for the light that leads the way Take my hand and I will lead you Where the torture and the pain will drift away Stay with me.... So going from some questions someone had about this and why the band had been banned from Christian stores in the U.S., one person posted that the people who had banned the band "Obviously they haven't read Ezekiel 23, especially verses 3, 20 and 21." I print those here for you in the New American Standard Version since so many people are reading that nowadays: Ezekiel 23:3 and they played the harlot in Egypt. They played the harlot in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and there their virgin bosom was handled. vs. 20 & 21 "She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth. I would have posted the whole chapter, but I limited what I quoted to just the verses he pointed out. You can read the whole chapter here: bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Ezekiel+23&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=49&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=57&Submit.y=12So after that person mentioned Ezekiel another person posted something that when I mentioned I would be doing this thread on here he said I could copy: BEGIN QUOTE yeah, i've thought for a long time that those passages made the Song of Songs lyrics seem so tame.... the hypocrisy is so thick in most of mainstream churches concering such content. just imagine: the scene is a typical sunday church... head deacon Brother Stewart finishes with his list of announcements and the report on the offering recieved for the Lottie Moon fund, and then says, "Now if you would please welcome Brother Melvin as he brings us special music inspired directly from the holy book of Ezekiel...." the well-dressed man steps onto the stage, centers himself behind the stained oak pulpit, and proceeds to sing in a stirring baritone voice: (the organ plays softly) Let me tell you of two sisters, wives of a husband true. they could not bear to remain faithful, so what did they do?
they left the comfort of his love because they wanted more. into the world they wandered, and they both became a sleeper.
but these sluts were different, for they paid for their tricks. they immersed themselves in lust, in filth to get their fix.
on every corner they spread their legs to every passerby, offering their flesh to fill cravings they would not deny.
by the members of their well-hung lovers they were mesmerized, and of the copious seed of all their trysts they forever fantasized.
so judgment will come hard unto these sisters of the night, and they will find themselves naked and cold in the darkest night.
but the loving husband will take them back and clean them of their sin. he will rinse them free of their lovers smell and take them to him again.at this point Brother Melvin lets the last note fade into the silence of the sanctuary, as the congregation sits in stunned silence. here and there a throat is heard being cleared, and people look nervously from left to right, almost not believing the words of the song that have filled this "holy" place. nothing more is said, of course, but afterward a deacon's meeting is called to decide what must be done about this lewd man and his sorrid words -- in a manner that will leave them all free from any hint of hypocrisy, of course. let us pray.END QUOTE Just how sanitized is your reading of the Word of God? So the question is this: Where can we draw the line when writing (no matter if it's non-fiction, fiction, or songs) when the Bible itself is so graphic in nature? The issue isn't "Are we being allegorical?" or "Does this have a purpose?" The issue should be "Are we being honest in our storytelling?" If a person is a bad person and does something wrong, why is it okay to show him as a violent person, but not as a fornicator? If the hero of our story, or a secondary character that is basically "good" (have you taken the "good test" lately?) goes astray in his or her faith, why is it okay to show them as a thief, but not as an adulterer or a foul mouthed person? Where can we draw the line, and should we? By turning more and more to "Christian" fiction and turning away from so called "secular" fiction, have we not created another "god" for ourselves and not erected an idol of "holiness" that doesn't meet God's standard of true holiness? Isn't true holiness admitting our sin - all of it - so we can be free from it? If we are afraid to face it, are we truly free? I just think that we should be careful where we draw the line, as well as where we expect others to do so. Thank you for your time, I hope this gives some food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by kingsheart on Oct 11, 2009 12:09:26 GMT -5
You bring up some really good questions. I know in my writing, I try to keep my characters real, warts and all. If they aren't real to me, they're not real to anybody else.
I think back to the parables Jesus left us. What great examples of people who weren't perfect! Just like those Jesus healed, they weren't whole. If they didn't have faults, problems, brokenness, they would never need a Savior.
In my writing, I want my readers to see brokenness and failure. It makes the 'redemption' of those characters so much more rewarding and gives the reader, I hope, a little glimpse into that infinite grace we are all called to experience: the mercy of God.
|
|
|
Post by metalikhan on Oct 11, 2009 16:58:27 GMT -5
It's a difficult question, dj. I think one thing we need to ask ourselves is how such writing glorifies God and how it reflects the righteousness of Christ. While our writings explore many aspects of the processes our characters go through to accept (or reject) redemption, we also bear a responsibility to those who read what we write. Whether fiction, poetry, or music, when we write with public exposure of our work in mind, our writing ceases to be simply our personal way of glorifying God. It becomes a step into the realm of teaching; and God holds teachers more accountable for what they present to their audience. Consider that one of Jesus' methods of teaching was by parables (stories).
As followers of Christ, we must consider what stumbling blocks we may be throwing in front of weaker or wounded brothers and sisters by bringing sexual content to their attention. In Matt 5:27-28, Jesus indicates that adultery is not simply the physical act; it is also the condition of the heart, but both are sin. In 1Cor 6:18, Paul writes that every sin a person commits is outside the body, but sexual immorality is also sinning against one's own body. A sexually explicit story or song is capable of eliciting specific physical responses. Speaking for myself as a reader and a writer, this is not a matter of honesty in storytelling — this is a level of intimacy that I don't want engaged by an author nor do I want to engage it in another reader.
I can think of a great number of times in the Old Testament when God told His people to make war on another nation, to destroy them utterly. These were acts of violence — warfare is not gentle. But He never commanded anyone to commit adultery, fornication, or any kind of sexual immorality. I've also come to believe there are cultural as well as generational aspects to this question. So much, too, involves personal preferences. I do not think private matters are for public dispensing. I have a strong none of your business attitude about many things that others seem to feel are everyone's business. When I read for entertainment, I select those works that reinforce meditation on things that are noble and just, that build up righteousness. This does not mean I put on blinders and deny the existence of immorality; but I do not feel the need to embrace its graphic depiction. I do not want to deliberately batter the shield in my heart set against impurity. I want the fiction I read and the music I hear to strengthen the guard.
It's more than simply sanitizing what we read or listen to or write. The thief, the gossip, the betrayer, and even the murderer do not achieve the emotionally intimate entanglement that the sexually immoral can in fiction or song. I've known a number of people deeply wounded in that one area; and I feel that for me to write the graphic portrayal of the sin, even when redemption is achieved, is akin to setting a glass of bourbon in front of an alcoholic or leaving a wallet on the front seat of an unlocked car.
Others may not feel this particular conviction. I think we have to closely examine the particular callings God places in each of us regarding what we write as well as our motivations. Jesus counseled His own to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. With His guidance, we try.
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Oct 11, 2009 17:32:05 GMT -5
Part of it is very much cultural. America is well known for accepting much more violence in its entertainment than Europe--who generally prefers sex. And I'm right there. My 8-yo loves Ben Ten and Clone Wars, but I can't let him watch Transformers because of one scene. And it has nothing to do with violence!
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Oct 11, 2009 21:18:33 GMT -5
You made a lot of normal points, metalikhan and I may address a few of them at a later date, but I am wondering something after reading this: But He never commanded anyone to commit adultery, fornication, or any kind of sexual immorality. Have you ever read the book of Hosea?
|
|
|
Post by waldenwriter on Oct 11, 2009 21:53:12 GMT -5
I personally don't like books with sex or cursing in them. The sex or cursing often seems unnecessary. Violence I suppose one could argue for, since the storyline might require it. I've never written anything gratituitously violent, but my current novel-in-progress has one scene that I added while making the novel outline that might be considered violent. It features Nightshade, the evil thief and murderer my protagonist is cursed to become, on one of her nightly rampages. I added this scene so that the reader could see firsthand how bad the curse is and what the protagonist is trying to escape from. But given the nature of this evil alter-ego, the scene has some violence. This and the scene where the villain is revealed are really the only clearly violent scenes in the book.
So I think you can have violence if your storyline requires it, but only if it requires it. You shouldn't have violence just for violence's sake, since that sort of storyline can only be justified if your main character is some kind of amoral psychopath or really malevolent spiritual being, and maybe not even then.
As for cursing, I don't think that has any place in a Christian novel, frankly. It doesn't have a place in quite a lot of secular novels either -- many people were shocked when J.K. Rowling included some cursing in book 7 of Harry Potter (including the famous Molly Weasley line "Not my daughter, you b****!").
As for sex, the Bible has very clear guidelines about sex. You're not supposed to have sex outside of marriage, either pre-marital sex before marriage or adulterous sex afterwards. Due to the generally harsh stigma given sexual content in Christian works, it's probably best not to have it at all if you can help it. Even a romance novel can be written without having sex in it -- there is a whole subgenre of romance novels called "sweet" romances that are just that.
Granted, God created us as sexual beings, as they say at my church every time they preach about sexuality. But he knows that if we try to fulfill our sexual drives outside of the proper context, we won't be fulfilled and often will come out worse in the end. As a pastor at my church said during the sermon last week on 1 Corinthians 7, sex is like nuclear power. If you put nuclear power in a reactor, it can light up a whole city. But if you put it in a bomb, it can destroy a city.
So I think for me, sex and cursing aren't appropriate, and violence should be used only if it's necessary, and not gratituitously.
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Oct 11, 2009 21:57:37 GMT -5
Good points about the difference between cultures. Not just American vs. European, but let's add in Asian, African, Middle Eastern, Australian, Indian, and South American cultures as well. Not to mention all the various sub-cultures involved in each just mentioned (including the two you started with). The things is, as a part of Christian America we typically like to ignore things that are a part of other cultures and tend to villify those cultures - even if people in those cultures are Believers. I remember hearing about Iraqi Christians that worked in Saddam Hussein's palace when he ruled there. When I mentioned this to someone with a limited viewpoint on how things can be - e.g. your typical Christian American - he stated that those Iraqis couldn't really be Christians if they were working for such a person as Saddam. The person must never have read the book of Daniel where Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah worked for King Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon and even took on Babylonian names during their time in Babylon: Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Even more ironic of this comparison is that Iraq is where Babylon used to be and Saddam thought he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar. On another note, I'm wondering which Transformers movie you're referring to - the first one or the recent one. You said "one" scene. Outside of a couple of things that were potentially questionable, I really didn't have a problem with the first one. The second one is a travesty of ebonic bad language in much more than one scene that just shouldn't be in a movie based off of kid's toys. Yet, the thing is in the sub-culture of the street what was said would be perfectly acceptable and might even be more fitting in the movie than at first glance. So again, good points about cultural differences. Part of it is very much cultural. America is well known for accepting much more violence in its entertainment than Europe--who generally prefers sex. And I'm right there. My 8-yo loves Ben Ten and Clone Wars, but I can't let him watch Transformers because of one scene. And it has nothing to do with violence!
|
|
|
Post by metalikhan on Oct 12, 2009 3:26:18 GMT -5
I've heard people use Hosea as an example of scriptural inconsistency as well as an argument in favor of Christian erotica. (Yeah, I've read Hosea.) Commentaries I've read seem mostly divided into two camps. One holds that the prophet is using a literary form called a reversal (much like reverse psychology) to deliver his message. (Yes, go lay your hand on that red hot burner. Please, go play on the freeway during rush hour.)
The other holds that there was an actual marriage but God did not command Hosea to be sexually immoral; He commanded Hosea to enter into a marriage covenant with a harlot in order that the prophet's life would be a reflection or parable of God's covenant relationship with unfaithful Israel. A couple of commentaries had the additional notes that indicated a harlot, according to various meanings of that time, may or may not be an actual prostitute.
The prophetic warning of God's judgment for Israel's infidelity and idolatry (which is also called prostitution) is a call for the people to repent and beg God's forgiveness and restoration. This repentance and return to God cancels out His judgment and anger they deserve; His love, provision, and compassion for His wayward children will once more shine on them.
My comments may be a normal argument; but the only arguments I've heard in favor of sexually explicit stories and songs sound more like what can I get away with. The second song quoted would've drawn no less rejection in the church I go to than it did in the one mentioned. It's not simply a matter of such content being aired in a "holy" place. There would be parents wondering what they would have to explain to their young children after having the song sprung on them. There would be victims of sexual abuse wondering if there is no sanctuary free of what so painfully reminds them of what they endured. There would be members of a particular ministry that deals with men as they work through the long-term consequences of infidelity, sexual promiscuity, and pornography addiction. Yes, they are saved and God has forgiven them, but most damaged or lost their families because of what they did; and they wonder if they will be assaulted anew in church by the very kind of content that originally ensnared them. These people have names and faces -- I know them.
Not using profanity or sexually explicit material in my writing is a personal conviction; others may not feel the same. I know, however, I could not look any of the people mentioned above in the eye if I handed them a story, or poem, or song that I know would wound them further.
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Oct 12, 2009 8:18:03 GMT -5
Hmmmmm....quite a few things here to respond to and clear up. I've heard people use Hosea as an example of scriptural inconsistency as well as an argument in favor of Christian erotica. (Yeah, I've read Hosea.) I was doing neither of those. I believe Hosea is scripturally consistent and I wasn't arguing in favor for Christian erotica. I was merely surprised that you would say, "But He never commanded anyone to commit adultery, fornication, or any kind of sexual immorality" in light of the book of Hosea. Commentaries I've read seem mostly divided into two camps. One holds that the prophet is using a literary form called a reversal (much like reverse psychology) to deliver his message. (Yes, go lay your hand on that red hot burner. Please, go play on the freeway during rush hour.) Since the prophet was declaring the Word of the Lord, wouldn't this be more God using reverse psychology than the prophet himself? Otherwise, the prophet would surely be in sin if he was coming up with this on his own, right? The other holds that there was an actual marriage but God did not command Hosea to be sexually immoral; That would be inaccurate since God said to have children with the first woman who in the KJV was to be "a wife of whoredoms" which is pretty blatant and goes against your argument later about her may or may not being a prostitute. Even if she didn't accept money (as is the typical definition of prostitute) it is apparent that she was sexually promiscuous. And that was just the first woman, God told him to marry more than one like this. He commanded Hosea to enter into a marriage covenant with a harlot in order that the prophet's life would be a reflection or parable of God's covenant relationship with unfaithful Israel. A couple of commentaries had the additional notes that indicated a harlot, according to various meanings of that time, may or may not be an actual prostitute. The prophetic warning of God's judgment for Israel's infidelity and idolatry (which is also called prostitution) is a call for the people to repent and beg God's forgiveness and restoration. This repentance and return to God cancels out His judgment and anger they deserve; His love, provision, and compassion for His wayward children will once more shine on them. Only the House of Israel? Perhaps you need to read it again. He also talks to the House of Judah and Ephraim. And do you understand the distinction of those three? My comments may be a normal argument; but the only arguments I've heard in favor of sexually explicit stories and songs sound more like what can I get away with. I'm not talking about "what can I get away with" as much as just being real about things - especially when it comes to what the Bible itself has to say about things. The second song quoted would've drawn no less rejection in the church I go to than it did in the one mentioned. By "the one mentioned", I presume you're talking about the song by the band? And what particularly did you find offensive about that song? I would hope that you are aware that it is primarily taken from the Book of Revelation and that this book of prophecy is very graphic and explicit. Also, since the second song (which as I understand was made up on the spot, so it's a rough cut anyway) was taken from the chapter in Ezekiel. So are there parts of the Bible we can sing about and parts we can't? Aren't we supposed to take the Whole Word of God and not just part? It's not simply a matter of such content being aired in a "holy" place. There would be parents wondering what they would have to explain to their young children after having the song sprung on them. There would be victims of sexual abuse wondering if there is no sanctuary free of what so painfully reminds them of what they endured. There would be members of a particular ministry that deals with men as they work through the long-term consequences of infidelity, sexual promiscuity, and pornography addiction. Yes, they are saved and God has forgiven them, but most damaged or lost their families because of what they did; and they wonder if they will be assaulted anew in church by the very kind of content that originally ensnared them. These people have names and faces -- I know them. All of that sounds reasonable enough, but it comes back to this: Are we to ignore certain parts of the Bible just because it makes us uncomfortable? If you have issues with sin in your life then you need to confront it in the power of God and overcome it so that it has no hold on you. I have feelings for people that have problems with pornography and those that have been sexually abused, but we either operate by the yoke removing, burden destroying power of God or we don't. I don't know what actions your church takes to help these people, but if it isn't freeing them to where such talk from the Bible itself wouldn't "assault" and "ensnare" them, then it should reevaluate what it needs to be doing. You want to talk about knowing names and faces? I've met women who were prostitutes at one time that now go back to the streets and minister to pimps and prostitutes alike. A person I haven't met yet that has started a large ministry doing this very thing is the founder of Hookers for Jesus www.hookersforjesus.net/home.cfm and has been interviewed on The 700 Club, was featured in a debate on ABC's Niteline called Does Satan Exist? and was a victim of human sex trafficking her own self. I've met former alcoholics that go into bars and minister to the people there. I've met former homosexuals that minister to homosexuals. People can't go back to where they were once tempted to minister like that unless they are truly free of the sin that once "assaulted" them and "ensnared" them. Bible passages - and writings based on those said passages - should never do such a thing to anyone. Not using profanity or sexually explicit material in my writing is a personal conviction; others may not feel the same. I know, however, I could not look any of the people mentioned above in the eye if I handed them a story, or poem, or song that I know would wound them further. If you think such a thing would wound them further, then you shouldn't hand them such a thing, but what were you writing it for? If you wrote it just to write it and get it out of your system, then that's nothing to show anyone anyway except for maybe your spouse. There are short snippets I write all the time - and not necessarily about sex or cursing either - that I would never show anyone in the form that I wrote it. With the two songs I quoted - one actually produced and put on an album, the other a spur of the moment thing - both were based on scripture. Now if you were to write something based on scripture, would you still have a problem showing it to them, or would that just depend on which scripture you were writing something based on? I suppose in your church there will never be any preaching out of the Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) or Ezekiel 23 or the more "erotic" sections of prophecy like what's found in areas of the Book of Revelation unless the more graphic areas are glossed over so as not to offend anyone. Gotta' keep things sanitized after all.
|
|
|
Post by metalikhan on Oct 13, 2009 1:59:29 GMT -5
Oh, pooh! I just previewed this. Sorry, dj -- I couldn't get the quote by-lines to come up. Not sure why. I didn't mean to imply that you were. These are simply two ends of a broad scale of discussions I've heard about Hosea. Keep in mind that reporting what you've read or heard is not the same as reporting what you believe about what you've read or heard. I also believe in the Bible's consistency and inerrancy. That’s the reason I don’t think God's selection of Hosea's wife (-ves) was a command for Hosea to be sexually immoral. Possibly. The commentaries holding that view didn't make a strong distinction. They were examining the form and lesson of the message more than identifying the origin –- they seemed to take it for granted that God inspired the book. Not my argument — the commentaries where I saw that said "harlot" could mean a prostitute, a woman who dresses like a prostitute, a prostitute who worked in a pagan temple, a northern Israelite, a woman born out of wedlock, a sexually promiscuous woman, or a woman who came from an immoral nation. Interesting, if nothing else. Understand the distinction. Didn't really think that much detail was necessary for the topic. No, the comparison is between my church and the church that had the unfavorable reaction to the second song. Personally, I am incredibly difficult to offend; and I don't offer anyone access to the very few "detonate" buttons I have necessary to truly offend or anger me. Even my husband doesn't know all of them. I am aware that others are more easily offended. My church has never backed away from preaching on any part of the Bible; but the pastors do not expand on labeling private body parts or explicitly describing sexual actions beyond what Scripture says. There have been times that the pastor told the congregation that the topic of the sermon was for adults only, giving parents the opportunity to decide whether their children were old enough or mature enough to hear the message. I thought this was an example of good judgment and sensitivity on the pastor's part as well as respect for the parents' authority in their children's' upbringing. In making that announcement, he also gave the opportunity to leave for people who felt they were too fragile or not at a point in their personal walk with God to handle the message. Yes, we are to take the whole Word of God. We are also told to not be divisive in our liberty in Christ. In Romans 14 & 15, we are instructed to not give offense or cause weaker brothers to fall simply because we enjoy liberty in more superficial areas of our walk with God. Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Rom 15:1,2 We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification. Scriptures such as that rank among my personal reasons for refraining from including sexually explicit material and profanity from what I write. It is a major reason for my personal conviction/feeling of responsibility toward those who would read what I write. I've known and worked with such people as well. Some are in my own family. I had to trust in God's timing for the point in which they felt the desire to embrace the yoke-removing, burden-destroying power of God. I could not force it on them. Words of counsel from Scripture ultimately bore fruit in their lives; but God did not flip a switch that immediately made everything all right with them. He did not expunge the consequences of their actions that affected so many beyond their lives. Even years after accepting salvation, many of them still must face repercussions of what they did. Working through it with God's help is an ongoing process for them. Every writer has produced material that they will never show. I've written stories and poems that I'll never try to market. I recently shredded an entire novel I wrote, not because it was badly done -- it was good enough for me to be confident I could submit it for publication successfully -- but because it was too intensely personal, many parts thinly veiled autobiography. If I wrote a song or poem with profanity or explicit material even based on Scripture, I would not hand it over to someone that I know would be wounded by it. This is for the same reason I would not present my poem about a mastiff from an ancient bear/bull-baiting ring to someone who is terrified of dogs. (Neither hypothetical person could give my little ** ahem**masterpiece an unbiased reading anyway. : Seriously though, discernment about where someone else is in their personal relationship with God is not one of my stronger points. I can't know if the person is ready to face what originally wounded them or at what point they are in dealing with it. I won't force the issue; but if the person asks to see such a story or poem, I would not refuse that individual because, in asking, they are telling me they are maturing enough in Christ to ablate those inner scars that prevent them from fully enjoying the freedom Christ gave them.
|
|
|
Post by Kristen on Oct 30, 2009 22:15:59 GMT -5
As followers of Christ, we must consider what stumbling blocks we may be throwing in front of weaker or wounded brothers and sisters by bringing sexual content to their attention. ... Speaking for myself as a reader and a writer, this is not a matter of honesty in storytelling — this is a level of intimacy that I don't want engaged by an author nor do I want to engage it in another reader. That's just what I was thinking. Also, I'm reminded of Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time. In the "Acknowledgments" section, he writes, "Someone told me that each equation I included in the book would halve the sales. I therefore resolved not ot have any at all. In the end, however, I did put in one ... E-mc 2. I hope this will not scare off half of my potential readers." I think that, likewise, every piece of sexual content or vulgarity reduces the potential readership of a Christian book. There will be those who won't recommend it to others because of those stumbling blocks or things that offend. So you have to weigh the pros and cons of including that material. Honestly, although we may write for the Author of All, isn't the purpose of the writing ultimately to edify other people? Otherwise, we would just leave the manuscripts in our closets.
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Oct 31, 2009 0:30:26 GMT -5
When I was in high school in the nineties, I discovered a fellow by the name of Steve Taylor. He was a Christian musical artist that wasn't afraid to tell it like it was in his songs and as I discovered when I got the two tape "Now The Truth Can Be Told" collection, he apparently P.O.'d a lot of different ministers including one Jimmy Swaggart who devoted a whole chapter to him in one of his anti-rock books. He also got the people with Bob Jones University a bit upset with one of his songs, and another song got people on both sides of the abortion debate upset with him.
With songs like "I Want To Be A Clone", "Meltdown (At Madame Tussaud's)", "Guilty By Association", "Lifeboat", "We Don't Need No Colour Code", "I Blew Up The Clinic Real Good", "Since I Gave Up Hope I Feel A Lot Better", and others, it's easy to see why he rattled some cages, but at the heart of every song when you examine the lyrics is a believer crying out at the hypocrisy within the Church and a call to self-examine oneself when it comes to sin.
In the collection a booklet is included with liner notes. On the first page are some quotes from people that obviously inspired him in life. One of them really struck me as a teenager who was considering getting involved with movies while also working on a manuscript at the time (which is long lost now) and it became a guiding principle for how I see things when it comes to entertainment whether it be novels, music, movies, or whatever:
"The writer who emphasizes spiritual values is very likely to take the darkest view of all of what he sees in this country today. For him, the fact that we are the most powerful and the wealthiest nation in the world doesn't mean a thing in any positive sense. The sharper the light of Faith, the more glaring are apt to be the distortions the writer sees in the life around him...my own feeling is that writers who see by the light of their Christian faith will have, in these times, the sharpest eyes for the grotesque, for the perverse, and for the unacceptable...the novelist with Christian concerns will find in modern life distortions which are repugnant to him, and his problem will be to make these appear as distortions to an audience which is used to seeing them as natural."
For me, I took that as an evangelistic call. For me, I cannot write "Christian entertainment" only, even if it does entertain believers. For me, I've got to always realize that there are people out there that isn't going to get "Christianeze", nor will they understand happy endings, and having things absent that they've come to expect will only cause them to not be affected and probably won't cause them to recommend my work to anyone. My "problem" as it was stated above, is that I've got to go ahead and include what they've come to expect, but somehow show it in a way that let's them see it from our perspective.
And pray to God that as they read the story, listen to the music, or watch the movie, that somehow they feel that knock on the door of their heart and that they ultimately choose Jesus before it is too late.
I will do anything if I think it will bring someone into the Kingdom and the Body of Christ. I don't care how realistic I have to be. I don't care how gruesome. If it's a story that God gives me to tell, then I will tell it to the best of my ability and pray that it gets into the hands of an unbeliever so that their life can be changed.
I'm not real good with one on one witnessing. I don't like going up to complete strangers and "forcing" them through a series of questions to get to a point where they say the sinner's prayer because there's really no way to do proper follow up on that. When I talk with my agnostic and atheistic friends, we get bogged down in minutiae that I always try to steer us around, but invariably all the good arguments I read in books and hear in sermons leave my head at that moment as I'm left to deal with whatever we're talking about at that point in time.
But if I can complete a story, and get it published, and it gets into the hands of a non-believer - whether I know them or not - then I have the chance to witness in a way that lets me utilize a gift God gave me and hopefully make a difference for the Kingdom of God.
Even Jesus had some pretty harsh words to say when he confronted the Pharisees. Remember this one? "Whitewashed tombs" or how about "Brood of vipers" or even "Sons of serpents". That last one we have a modern version of in reference to dogs.
And again, I'm not talking about doing anything in our writing that is done in a lascivious way, but if you have a hard time reading the Song of Solomon or that chapter I mentioned in my first post, then maybe you should watch what you read more often, even in a Christian book store.
I'm not going to water down things in the art that I do. I'm going to portray sin as it is, and salvation as it is and hope and pray that lives are affected because of it. If that means I lose some Christian readers and you are one of them, then I at least hope that you would be willing to pass along anything I get released in the future to any unsaved people that you know.
Read the above quote again and take some time to meditate on it. See what God shows you from that quote that you can be doing differently in your own writing.
May this help and encourage at least one person that reads it.
|
|
|
Post by metalikhan on Nov 1, 2009 1:04:46 GMT -5
I can't entirely agree with the quote although I also have to admit I don't read Christian bookstore fiction and I stopped reading a lot of the nonfiction that so many at church go ga-ga over (too little of it relevant to anything in my life). As Christians, we are in spiritual warfare and our spiritual relationship with God defines who we are and how we conduct our daily lives. If spiritual values are not present in our writing or music or art, what makes our works different from secular works? What I do agree with is that there is often deep hypocrisy present in how a lot of professing Christians relate to brothers and sisters in Christ as well as to unbelievers.
One of the most profoundly impacting statements spoken to me came from an unbeliever in the machine shop where I worked for 6 years. "You're the first Christian I've known who never stood on the Bible to look down on me." Considering that this was in the heart of the Bible belt, those few words did not speak well for the Church.
I've mentioned bits about that shop in other threads so I won't go into a lengthy repeat here other than to say that I never felt more respected and protected in any job as I did working with those rowdy, raunchy guys. That was where one of the more educated gents said I reminded him of Mother Teresa, Red Skelton, and Attila the Hun, and bestowed a nickname that I still use. Although I never took breaks with them, I did not make them feel I was better than they were or that I was too "holy" to talk to. Covered with grease and grinding dust, stinking of sweat and coolant, I made an impact for God's kingdom in a way no other nice, clean church ladies I've met could endure. (Two such ladies quit after working there a few days.)
I had to learn to use profanity there. I never believed there were people who truly could not communicate without it until I worked there. There's nothing quite like uncomprehending, deer-in-the-headlights stares to tell you that what you just said in simple English didn't compute at all. How do you reconcile the Scripture that says to let no vile things come from your mouth with a segment of population whose vocabulary and verbal usage is primarily profanity? **laughing** I had to ask my husband about some of the words and phrases because communicating was necessary. Manufacturing doesn't allow a lot of time for English lessons or for diatribes about sin and salvation. If Christ isn't at least a glimmer in your daily life, no one will notice that somehow you're different and it's a difference they want to know more about, it's a difference they want for themselves.
After that place closed, I learned something else. Once profanity was added to my "verbal skills ", it took ten times longer to get rid of it. It simply is not suitable for every place of employment; and anything God might want to do through me at my next job would have been rejected for that alone. It was simply the nature of the people who worked there.
What does all that have to do with writing? I've said before there are preferences and convictions that are personal. I don't expect others to have the same ones any more than I expect others to have the same spiritual gifts or calling. When I write, I have target audiences in mind beyond my main audience of One and know what they will and will not consider. When I'm exploring cultural cancers, hypocritical attitudes within the Church, and how Scriptural applications look in various situations, I draw on personal experiences. No profanity was involved when I was bitten, kicked, or stabbed; none occurred when a drill bit went through my hand, when I was sliced with a broken bottle, or shot with an arrow. (A few bad words slipped out when I did surgery on myself; but no one was around except God and that was a little extreme anyway.)
These are no less real simply for the lack of profanity; but God allowed them uniquely for me. They have not made me less cheerful or content, have not made me concentrate on what's wrong or bad, have not lessened compassion for others, have not blunted my sense of humor or adventure even though they were very "real" experiences indeed!
I do not, however, think any of it invalidates someone else's experiences or perceptions. What God gives to another brother or sister is also unique for them. Even in my own family, my sisters experienced things far different than what I have and are equipped for reaching a different segment of believers and unbelievers.
If He made me a crucible for others to see how to withstand certain kinds of heat and made someone else a cattle-prod to shock the complacency and hypocrisy out of some of His children...
What do you think? Should I argue with Him?
|
|
|
Post by morganlbusse on Nov 3, 2009 15:06:49 GMT -5
I think we can deliver the message and emotional punches we are looking for in our writing without being overly graphic. I also believe that whatever we put in our stories should be there for a reason, to show a person's character or some event that changes a person.
My story contains some intense scenes. But as a friend of mine pointed out, she appreciated that I did not go into graphic detail, rather, if my story was a movie, the camera was focused on the person, rather than what was going on around the person, and since the focus was on the character, the reader went through the emotions and thoughts of the character and provided the thought provoking emotional punch I was going for (all this without being graphic).
So I don't think we should shy away from truth, but perhaps by being graphic, we will distract the reader from the truth we are trying to portray.
|
|
|
Post by pixydust on Nov 6, 2009 12:56:09 GMT -5
Oh, very interesting discussion... Sorry I missed it! I just thought I'd add my 2 cents since I'm coming at this from a bit of a different angle. As a Christian who wants to write I thought I would logically write for the CBA. Unfortunately I found myself a little bit too far "out of the box" so to speak. After a few years I was advised by several published CBA writers to take my work to the ABA. Not because I made every one have sex or curse in my novels, but because of subject matter. I have found doing this has been extreemly freeing. I am SO thankful that God sent me to the right people and encouraged me to leave the nest. I won't sugar coat it: it's been very difficult and there has been a lot of growing that needed to be done (by me). But I have learned something very important I don't think I would have learned in CBA: WRITE WHAT GOD TELLS YOU TO WRITE. That is it and that is all. Stop looking to others and saying: this shouldn't be in there, that shouldn't be in there. Just write what God puts on your heart. Do you think the biblical writers second guessed themselves? Somehow, I seriously doubt it. And Dizzyjam makes a lot of very good points for us to ponder. Ask youself this question: Why am I writing? Really think about it. WHY? Why do you pick up the tale and see it to its end? Every writer has a different answer but for yourself you need to find it. My answer is simple: to show the truth. Harsh though it may be. Painful though it may feel. The Truth will set us free. Some of CBA isn't always happy with the Truth as seen through the raw lense of character. I think Francene Rivers did it very well. But my favorite authors are not Christian authors on the surface. They're authors that slam down the reality of this world and then tear from it the one sliver of Hope inside of the human condition. Sometimes it's an obvious link to the Devine, but mostly it's just Truth in one form or another. Because as Christians I think we get too caught up in the "salvation message" we fail to recognize that it's the Holy Spirit who saves the lost--NOT US. And the Holy Spirit works through Truth and life and all manners of our failures and torments. So, for myself, as a writer, I want to listen to the Holy Spirit and follow His lead. No other. If you choose to write for the Christians and not the unsaved, then subject matter is really up to the gatekeepers of CBA. They think chopping someones head of is kosher, but you can't say "it" with a capitol SH and your MC can't have a one-night stand. On the surface it seems rediculous to me, too, but that's not my call. They have their reasons.
|
|