Christian Entertainment III

Amy Sullivan's basic thesis, in "Jesus Christ, Superstar," is that wretched books like the Left Behind series are popular in the evangelical subculture because of a lack of alternative "Christian-themed entertainment":

... sometime in the 1960s, religiously-themed entertainment simply disappeared. ...

This is a problem because when the only Christian-themed entertainment in the marketplace is laced with conservatism, Christianity itself will increasingly take on a conservative cast. The faith of Dorothy Day and Martin Luther King Jr. and Reinhold Niebuhr is not the faith of Tim LaHaye and Mel Gibson. Yet the more that single interpretation of Christianity dominates airwaves and bookshelves, the more people of faith are tempted to believe that the only way to be a "good" Christian is to be a conservative.

It's impossible to know whether the Left Behind books would still sell 60 million copies if they had a little competition. ... But there's no reason not to try.

I wish that the situation -- and the solution -- were as simple as Sullivan portrays.

The evangelical subculture is awash with bad art and dismal entertainments. From the Left Behind books to the vast majority of "contemporary Christian music" (which is none of the above) evangelicals are eagerly buying up awful dreck, the consumption of which makes them worse people, worse neighbors, worse citizens and fundamentally worse Christians. This is theologically awful, politically vapid, aesthetically blasphemous stuff.

If the popularity of these dismal artistic and entertainment offerings could really be explained as merely the result of a lack of "Christian-themed" alternatives, then a happy and hopeful solution presents itself: create more alternatives and watch quality win out in the marketplace of ideas.

The first problem with this idea is that the subcultural marketplace of American evangelicalism is not a free market.

Anything not produced by and for the profit of the barons and bishops of the subculture's market-driven ecclesiology will be branded as dangerous, heretical and anathema. The latest album of shallow pop music from a "Christian label" record company is permissible. The latest offerings from U2 or from Buddy and Julie Miller -- sales of which do nothing to enrich Word records or Creation concerts -- are not. Left Behind, which enriches Thomas Nelson, has the official blessing of the gatekeepers of the kingdom. John Grisham's preachy The Testament, is published by Random House and is therefore not officially sanctioned reading.

But that argument -- that evangelicalism's notion of orthodoxy is increasingly a function of sales -- is really a separate matter.

I mentioned U2 and John Grisham in part to point out the absurdity of the notion that there exists somehow a dearth of mainstream "Christian-themed entertainment."

Sullivan cites the peak of Hollywood's sandal-epic period as the high-point in the availability of such entertainments in American culture (oddly including Spartacus in the list of biblical epics). These films were all released, keep in mind, back in the days when evangelical Christians wouldn't set foot in a movie house.

But consider the decades since then and the abundance of XTEs that have blossomed -- from the entire careers of writers like John Updike, John Irving, Anne Tyler, Annie Dillard and Wendell Berry to the Jesus movement and the birth of "Christian rock," including a couple of Dylan albums for heaven's sake. Peter Jackson also recently adapted some popular novels by a devout Christian writer for the big screen -- perhaps you've heard of them?

And in any case, the existing pool of XTE isn't limited only to contemporary works. Last I checked, The Brothers Karamazov and The Complete Father Brown were still in print -- even if you will never, ever see either of them on the shelves of your local "Christian" bookstore.

No, sadly the popularity of Bad Christian Art is not the result of a lack of Good Christian Art. It is a result of the rejection of metaphor.

American evangelical Christians do not like metaphor. That's not strong enough. They fear metaphor. It terrifies them, and so they despise it, reject it and forbid it wherever possible.

This is why evangelical scripture reading conspicuously avoids the Gospels.

That seems like an outrageous claim, yet it is assuredly true. Evangelical preaching and devotional literature is far, far more likely to turn to the epistles of St. Paul or to the (apparently) simple maxims of the Book of Proverbs than to the frighteningly ambiguous narrative portions of the Bible.

Evangelicals prefer their truth in simple, unambiguous propositions. The Gospels and Jesus' parables -- all that worrisome, polyvalent storytelling -- just won't do. Occasionally, but rarely, some brave soul will wade fearfully into the great pools of poetry, epic history or parable in the Bible, but only to reassure others that the biblical writers were all, like Aesop, simple fabulists and that really all such passages can be reduced to a propositional kernel of unthreatening, unambiguous, unremarkable truth. The Psalms are read as proverbs.

(The late Francis Schaeffer -- whose influence on the last few decades of evangelical culture would be difficult to overstate -- provided the pseudo-intellectual justification for this hatred of metaphor. He was famous for wearing knickers, for declaring that "all truth is propositional and all politics genital" and for condemning Soren Kierkegaard as the Antichrist. The fact that Schaeffer decried metaphor while simultaneously calling for greater Christian engagement in the arts is an example of what the Antichrist would've called irony-- another forbidden literary device.)

Fiction in general is to be distrusted. A blatant allegory, like C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, is permissible, but any narrative that defies such a simple one-to-one replacement code interpretation is suspect. In any case, evangelicals vastly prefer Mere Christianity. Those few who have read, and understood, the rest of Lewis' Narnia books have been scandalized by what they found there -- from the Bacchanalia of Prince Caspian's satire against legalism to The Last Battle's blessedly expansive notion of grace.

It is no accident that the Left Behind novels are remarkably free of metaphor, of multi-leveled themes, or even of the kinds of visual details that might be taken to stand for something at a non-literal level. Artless art -- explicit, monovalent, prosaic prose -- is the only permissible form of storytelling.

This is true not only in the realm of fiction, but in music as well. Singer-songwriter Rich Mullins found great fortune and favor in the evangelical world when he penned the thuddingly blunt praise chorus "Our God is an awesome God." His more thoughtful and musically interesting writing about the "Ragamuffin Gospel" wasn't nearly as welcome. (I would say more about the world of "contemporary Christian music" but, alas, it's too depressing.)

Isn't it possible, though, that some evangelicals could be persuaded, through exposure to better quality art, to embrace metaphor?

Yes. Not only is this possible, it happens all the time. But because the fear and loathing of metaphor is an intrinsic part of the self-definition of the evangelical subculture, this also means that these people cease to be "evangelicals." Sure, some of us hold on to the label, but the truth is we no longer fit in, and we're no longer really accepted.

I still consider myself an "evangelical" Christian -- I'm still born-again, after all. But once one recognizes that even this phrase -- "born again" -- is, like all language about the transcendent, a metaphor, one no longer is completely comfortable or completely welcome within the evangelical subculture. There metaphor is still distrusted and feared. They are like Nicodemus on the rooftop, still clinging to their pharisaical propositions, unable to grasp why this compelling teacher insists on speaking in riddles.

Comments

[Nick]

I'm not a Christian myself, but, jeez, what an interesting post...

The world of most evangelical Christians really is very limited, isn't it? I've often thought that if such people sat down and sketched every aspect of their faith, their God and their world-view, it wouldn't make a lot of sense. I guess they preserve this by being agressively against introspection...

[julia]

On the other hand, God is bigger than the boogie man, he's bigger than Godzilla or the monsters on TV...

(this has been your VeggieTales moment of zen. Now where is my hairbrush?)

[bellatrys]

Wow. Awesome *post*, Fred.

[bellatrys]

Nick - yup. It seems to work for a lot of people.

[AKMA]

If George Harrison doesn’t (didn’t) have to market his records as “Sikh Rock” or U2 as “Christian Rock,” why do some bands and some filmmakers need to append the theological modifier to their work?

Because no one would pay attention if they didn’t?

Thanks, Fred!

[Darren]

I love your description of the gospels as "frighteningly ambiguous." Whenever I'm called upon to justify my love of the arts to evangelical friends, my first response is always, "Jesus was a storyteller."

I don't mean to use your comments section as a billboard, but a group of Christian film critics who share your frustrations recently put together a list of 100 films that they hope will push evangelicals in the right direction.

http://www.artsandfaith.com/top100/

Can you put together a list of good "christian fiction" that is overflowing with metaphor? What would be your top ten books or films?

Your old friend,

Todd

[Edward Liu]

Todd,

Sorry, but I have to ask -- did you actually READ the post? I think Fred has already gone a good long way in creating your requested top ten list already (Bros. Karamzov, Grisham's The Testament, Narnia books, Lord of the Rings in book and movie format, and that's just off the top of my head without looking back at it).

-- Ed

[Patrick Mullins]

That's very fine, Fred. I think I was a born-again Christian for about 18 years, having been brought up a Methodist in the South, then nothing particularly Christian, then I thought I was a Christian forever when I used the Course in Miracles for 17 years; that spell was broken, I threw out those books and anything related and was also banned from their chat room. By now I am no longer especially a Christian, no longer especially not a Christian--more or less a "converted lapsed Catholic," because most of my friends are Catholic and I don't go to church.

That's no importance about me: I just bring it up because during that period I was always trying to write and compose songs and prose and poetry that somehow expressed my "faith." Well, even then, those were so obviously much worse than anything else I came out with they all had to be thrown out. The only thing any good was a Sacred Harp style song about Switzerland and a poem about how Lana Turner suddenly appeared at a church where they don't allow make-up. I remember a perfectly repulsive song I wrote called "Lover-Light", which I never told a soul about, and even here it is tantamount to the most embarassing confession.

Some commentary about Racine's plays once clarified something about how religion should figure into art even before I quit being religious: I can't remember if the observations were by Anatole France or Giraudoux or whoever--regarding how art does not want God as such; He can only be conveyed as a presence by the
degree of power the work itself has.

Personally, I think there is plenty of room for some more good sandal epics. Not only Racine's Athaliah would be great, but all of Kings and Chronicles. I would like to see Jezebel done with an unknown from Sidon or Tyre--or maybe even Baghdad.

And even if you keep your faith in a Christian way unlike me--who can only see it making sense going into specific areas of life in this world, including art--how long do you stay "born again?" After awhile, wouldn't the "reborn" part cease to mean anything, and be just a pale marker at which some new directions were found that meant a lot to you? Otherwise, the "pre-reborn" part is too often negated even when it had value. The "pre-reborn" part is where the "forbidden fruit" lies, and I don't want that ignored--that's where most of the art is. And even if Racine did repent later of what he considered his profligacy, there are other examples of how to be Christian and produce phenomenally spiritual work: Liszt became an abbe, living in the Vatican, and George Balanchine said "God creates, man assembles."

He even made a piece called "The Prodigal Son."

I guess the part that is hard to understand is why it would be important after a time to still think of your Christianity as "evangelical." Isn't it enough to just be "Christian" if that's what you are?

[walden]

Thanks for the good essay.
A couple of thoughts:
1) What makes one still an 'evangelical'? I, like you, hang onto the label (perhaps for sentimental reasons), but I'm not sure I qualify anymore.
2) Could you post more about "Awesome God". Recently our church introduced this song in place of the Doxology when we have "contemporary worship" and it drives me crazy. I don't know precisely why I hate it so much -- I think part of it is the "our God" language, which suggest we own God and that God is domesticated and that somebody else's "God" (whoever that is) is not awesome (or at least as awesome as "ours"). The rest of this little ditty emphasizes that God reigns "in heaven above" -- while what is more important to us humans is probably God's reign (or incipient reign) on earth where we are. Then there's something about "power and love" but by this time I usually lose track and start wishing for the service to be over. (And shouldn't it be "love" first, then "power" -- ?)
Anyhow, it drives me nuts and I haven't fully sorted out why. Have you?

[Adam Stein]

Thank you for this. And thank you for writing. I think you're utterly invaluable.

[Buhallin]

I've thought this for quite a while, though I'll admit in a much less (if that were possible) flattering light.

I've been a gamer for many, many years, and having endured the assorted Christian rants against my hobbies, I came to the conclusion that they took things like D&D so seriously because they were, at their core, incapable of separating reality from fiction, which is why they were religious in the first place. They had to hold everything as literal, because if they didn't their own worldview was in serious jeopardy.

I've softened to religion in my coming old age , though I'm still agnostic, and think Fred has a friendlier description of the same effect.

Not sure there was really a point to that, other than "Right on!" :)

[ProfessorPlum]

Fascinating post, Fred. Thank you.

Do you have more writings on the Narnia chronicles? I've always found them endlessly fascinating.

[bgn]

Right on, as ever. But to what extent do you think the evangelical subculture's fear of metaphor--its damnable literalmindedness--is buying into a larger fear of metaphor in contemporary American culture? I'm thinking of phenomena like the flatness of public language--both in politics and in the entertainment media--and the whole "reality-show" craze, which assumes that the less scripted things are the more real they become.

[Beth]

Wonderful Fred. One glaring example of fundy 'literalization' is in their interpretation of the Creation story. With beautiful simplicity, the bible describes God creating everything out of nothing, first bringing forth the blank canvases of heaven and earth then adorning and organizing each, and with every new addition, pausing to look with satisfaction on the 'day's work' and saying, "It is good." It's a wonderful, multifaceted metaphor, presenting the universe as the product of a thoughtful, loving Designer, and also reminding us earthly creators that a work of art will always be incomplete until the artist puts something of him- or herself into it. (Theologians and philosphers wrestle endlessly with the concept of 'free will', but to artists it is obvious. The pain and messiness of free will is integral to bringing any work to life. Without it, the characters in a film or novel will be as flat and stiff as Rayford Steele.) Tragically, these Christians have squeezed all the life out of the Creation story, turning it into a dry narrative that runs counter, not only to established scientific theory but to common sense (How could there have been a 'first day' when the sun wasn't created until the 'second day'?)

The conflict between literalism and metaphor reminds me of Ishmael Reed's marvelous novel, Mumbo Jumbo, which posits a great war between strict, absolutist 'Atonism' and the joyfully chaotic creativity of 'Jes Grew' (Nobody invented jazz, it "jes' grew.") The Atonists fear and despise the chaotic richness of Jes Grew, which threatens their cold sterile, rigidity just like the literalists fear and despise the rich ambiguity of metaphor.

[spencer]

Fred -

Your site is fascinating. It reminds me that Christianity is not the repressive right-wing monolith that so many of us imagine it to be.

Keep up the good work. I'll be back, often.

[Jeff Keezel]

"...more about "Awesome God". Recently our church introduced this song in place of the Doxology when we have "contemporary worship" and it drives me crazy." ---walden

Oh man, that would drive me crazy as well. I really dislike that song. I can't speak for Fred but I am immediately put off by the opening line "When he rolls up his sleeves he ain't just puttin' on the Ritz." Such imaginative and original lyrics. Sheeesh! Kill me now!

That said, your complaints about the lyric to Awesome God as offensive when used as Doxology - I dunno - seems the traditional Doxology suffers from some of the same possessive and exclusive attitude and pushes us all around to boot:

"Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

Praise Him all creatures here below.

Praise Him above ye heavenly hosts.

Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen."

And let's not even get started on the Gloria Patri...

Great essay - someone finally laying out what I've recognized in dealing with so many conservative people - absolutely immune to insight. It is always so refreshing to talk with people who can handle a metaphor. They do seem to be getting harder and harder to find...thekeez

[HP]

Patrick: My understanding is that evangelizing is witnessing. "Slacktivist" is Fred's evangelism.

That "sometime in the 1960s" quote is just weird, though. Someone point me to the surfeit of Christian-themed entertainment prior to the 1960s. There was, um, Mahalia Jackson, and, and, ... what? I mean, if you're going to include Spartacus, you might as well include Italian beefcake films like Samson versus the Moon Men. At least Samson's in the Bible.

If anything, I'd say that explicitly Christian--even generically religious--themes were pretty rare in popular entertainment prior to the 1960s (although hymn-singing for entertainment was pretty popular--around 1910). On the other hand, the 60s and 70s gave us everything from Elvis singing gospel to Godspell to Davey & Goliath to the Singing Nun to "Jesus Is Just Alright By Me" to the original Chick tracts and I could go on and on and on.

Shoot, when I was a little kid, we attended an SBC church that was full of hippie Jesus Freaks. To this day, when I think of extreme piety, my mind flashes to images of a teenage girl in elephant-bell jeans and granny glasses with a huge cross dangling from her love beads. (I think I must've had a crush on her, but I was only 6.)

The 60s and 70s were the golden age of Christian-themed entertainment.

[Effern]

RE: Walden's question about "awesome God", as a casual observer, I believe that swept into the vernacular after someone made t-shirts and bumperstickers saying something to the effect of "God kills". (or something, it's been awhile since I have seen them)

In response, a flurry of t-shirts and bumperstickers were made that stressed "MY God is an AWESOME (or "loving", "merciful", "just", etc) God!"

Meaning, whatever God that person was talking about isn't OUR God.

Replace "God" with "America" and you're up to speed with the political landscape of 2004.

[kathryn in Sunnyvale]

In defense of CS Lewis-
I don't have his excellent essays on writing in front of me, but based on his writings I think he'd find the LB series to be bad writing, or written from bad motivations. He wanted stories for the sake of story, not stories for the sake of lectures or teachings. (And many fundies find Narnia only marginally more acceptible than, say, Harry Potter... Narnia has greek mythological beings and witches and smoking and beer and good people of the wrong religion going to heaven.)

While there are some one to one mappings of Christian themes to Narina content, Lewis explicitly rejected the idea that he wrote in order to promote Christianity or to give a specific moral. He thought that stories written to promote a moral / philosophy tended to be badly written. Stories written "for children" that were nothing more than a thinly disguised lecture were even worse. (One quote I could quickly find is "A book worth reading only in childhood is not worth reading even then."). He wrote that the Narnia books started as a visual: a glowing lampost and a satyr in the middle of a forest in winter. The next step was creating a narrative that could support that visual (so two of the books immediately come into being). The allegories came in later, and are there to promote the story, not to be the ends in themselves.

He liked science fiction and fantasy and fairy tale as writings that could give the reader a sense of wonder- being able to evoke the numinous. They allowed one to transcend reality, rather than trying to limit the imagination. I think he agreed with Tolkien that there is nothing wrong with escapist literature, that 'those most concerned about escape are the jailers' (to paraphrase Tolkien). I think Lewis disliked books that were merely fantasies about the real world- boys that go to school, study hard, and then become rich and get the girls- because they could limit the imagination or tie a person down to a rigid way of thinking. The LB series falls into this category (a rigid view of the world and Revelations), so again I think he'd dislike them.

For myself I think Lewis did a great job of evoking the numinous / eerie / otherworldly. Years after reading his books I can still imagine his underwater cities of the merefolk, or the quiet ponds in an infinite forest, or the frozen royalty under a dying sun..

[Christian]

I was with you until your distinction between the gospels and Paul, and your assertion that evangelicals prefer Paul. I find that the trend is overwhelmingly in the direction of those who want to play up Jesus at Paul’s expense, trying to assert a break between Jesus’ often-cryptic sayings--“those with ears to hear, let them hear”--and the teachings of arguably his greatest disciple, who certainly did have “ears to hear,” and who made it his life’s mission to bring the true gospel to Gentiles.

Evangelicals believe that Paul helps explain Jesus, even though Paul himself – and he admits as much in his own writings – can be difficult to understand (remember that, Fred?). But the general clarity of Paul is simply too much for those who have made a break from Fundamentalism and who, in their desire not to fall back into judgmental ways of thinking, put far too much distance between themselves and the fullness of the gospel message, as conveyed by … you guessed it, Paul.

This division between Paul and Jesus is one that all Christians should reject.

[cjenkins]

I've read Lord of the Rings many times (including The Simirilian) and am a little confused that it should be labeled Christian literature. It seems like there's a lot more pagan influences. Is there anyone who has read all of Tolkien's work, including appendices who can give convincing explanations of how this can be considered a Christian work?

[Eileen]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Theologian of the Year
http://www.thedoormagazine.com/archives/buffy.html

[Patrick]

Thank you for the clarification, HP. However, the term is largely associated now with an anti-intellectual evangelism, so intellectual evangelists like Fred are using the term as it is not usually or popularly understood--and they may usually have to explain it to us secular types. I am not as up on such matters as I thought, and briefly thought had come to a moderate-liberal political site here after I did a search on Joan Didion and found her LB+Bush piece discussed here. I'm glad this sort of thing exists, most of the comments are pretty civil, intelligent and diverse. It's religious, but has a nice balance of not being either too hostile or cloyingly "welcoming" when someone isn't.

[syfr]

For reflections about God and Art, may I recommend:

Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art
by Madeleine L'Engle

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865474877/qid=1087501384/sr=1-12/ref=sr_1_12/002-0252672-9024025?v=glance&s=books

[jfwells]

Excellent essay.

cjenkins - Having read just about every Tolkien book multiple times and having had a class in college on his literature, I can state with confidence that they are not Christian lit. Tolkien himself stated that they were not mean as an allegory for anything (the world wars and the cold war are the most common comparisons), but were instead created as a myth for the English to have as their own. Of course, our good host did not say that they were Christian lit. He said, "...Peter Jackson also recently adapted some popular novels by a devout Christian writer for the big screen..." and Tolkien was indeed a devout Christian. He even converted C.S. Lewis.

[A Texan in Maryland]

Wow, Fred. Thanks for explaining what I haven't been able to. I was raised Southern Baptist in Texas, but now live in Maryland, surrounded by Jewish, agnostic and other miscellaneously spiritual friends and attend an Episcopal parish. I've had a hard time explaining the depth of literalism I was raised in and am still growing past.

[Streak]

Very interesting post. I think you have nailed it regarding evangelicals and metaphor, but I have one observation/question regarding the metaphor of the Gospels. In my experience (growing up Southern Baptist in Colorado), much of the gospels are ignored (especially those social justice stories about greed, wealth, inclusion, etc) but remember great attention given to some of the weirder and more muddled passages from John 15 (I am the vine and your are the branches).

Anyway, keep it up.

Streak

[Tuxedo Slack]

walden skrev:

I don't know precisely why I hate ["Awesome God"] so much -- I think part of it is the "our God" language, which suggest we own God and that God is domesticated

I know that's why I hate it, the whole "Our God is an awesome God, and because I'm in His fan club, I'm awesome by proxy" attitude.

"And at the other end of the scale, we have taught men to say 'my God' in a sense not really very different from 'my boots', meaning 'the God on whom I have a claim for my distinguished services and whom I exploit from the pulpit — the God I have done a corner in'." (Screwtape, Letter XXI)

[Adrian]

You raise some very interesting points about literature that includes Christian themes or has been written by Christians. I think there's something else worth saying about the "Christian" subculture, which seems to be a peculiar feature of *modern* evangelical subcultures. I'm an outsider to all this, but my perception is that previous generations turned to evangelical books in addition to secular reading. Good Christians gave their children the Narnia books in addition to _Alice In Wonderland_, and Kipling (except for a handful out on the lunatic fringe who disapproved of everything except the bible.)

But now there seem to be people who want to live their lives in an exclusively Christian context. They don't want to give up their socializing and media consumption to spend all their time praying and reading the bible, though. They socialize in church groups, or in "ecumenical" organizations limited to fundamentalist evangelical Christians. They want ALL their books and videos and music to fit with the subculture, rather than reading a Christian book today and a secular book tomorrow. I think some of them complained that my local library mixes the Christian fiction in with the secular fiction.

[Michael]

Hmm, I can imagine the concept of Atheist Fiction, but what about Atheist Rock?

"My god is a fictional concept, a symbolic side effect of the neural architecture of my brain, and my hypothetical deity kicks your imaginary creator's butt!"

Agnostic Rock might be more interesting...

"My god, should he or she happen to actually exist, is a merciful god, I assume."

[Josie]

Clarifying on the Tolkien tangent; from various internet sources quoting some of Tolkien's letters, because I do not have the book with me right now to look them up personally:

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work," wrote J.R.R. Tolkien about his masterwork, "unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like "religion", to cults or practices, in the Imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

Elsewhere he states "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic." In 1958 he wrote that The Lord of the Rings is "a tale, which is built on or out of certain ‘religious’ ideas, but is not an allegory of them."

(These religious ideas, just the ones that jump out at a cursory reading without in-depth story, include the Eucharist, the laying down one's life for one's friends only to be able to take it up again in a more glorified form, etc.)

In other words, a much richer and more satisfying way of religious art; and a reason many evangelists freaked out and denounced him as a Satanist.

I just found this blog today from a mention in an online newsletter, and I am already a huge fan, as LB is one of my major pet peeves. I live in the Bible belt.

[Mychelline]

I was raised Roman Catholic in the Chicago area, but converted to Neo-Paganism as an adult. Then I married a Southern Baptist (!) from Kentucky, and moved to central Indiana.

There weren't many fundies in Chicago, so I've really learned a lot in the 9 years in Indiana. I enjoy your site, Fred, because you are clearly a thoughtful, intellectual, and interesting person who is also Christian. I've met exactly 3 people in Indiana who also fit that description.

Thanks for giving me hope that all Christians are not scary people who want to condemn me to hell.

[Elfstar]

I also think it's worth pointing out that the two most popular cartoonists in the history of mankind are Christians -- not just Christians, but perfect exemplars of the best and worst that Christianity has to offer the world: Charles Schulz and Jack Chick. Although I must admit, I do love me some Chick tracts...a no-prize of eternal hellfire to whoever can name the comic that my handle comes from!

[Bill B]

Julia-- sorry about your hairbrush, i think it fell behind the dresser. I was going nuts with an air compressor, with all these fruit flies.

[colin roald]

As an atheist, I would like to say, I love my lips.

[Beth]

Let's not make the mistake of assuming all evangelicals are closed-minded morons. Besides Fred, there are people like Bishop Carlton Pearson, a born again preacher and graduate of Oral Roberts University. He's been accused of heresy by some of his fellow evangelicals for preaching that Christ died for the sins of all mankind, and through His sacrifice we are all saved. If that doesn't sound terribly heretical, consider, as Bishop Pearson has, the implications of that statement: everyone is already saved, regardless of their beliefs. No one will suffer eternal damnation; no one will be 'left behind.' He still evangelizes but his goal is not to bring salvation to people, but to bring them to the realization that they are already saved. While remaining firmly rooted in evangelical Christianity, he has done away with the narrow-mindeness and intolerance we normally associate with that movement.

[Patrick Mullins]

Beth- that doesn't sound heretical, just false. We weren't saved by Christ, he just set himself up as a god, not content to be a sage--as E.M. Cioran pointed out so well. The problem is not evangelicals being morons--just morons, period. Christ didn't have sway over the "sins of all mankind" and it's intrusive to be forced to be saved. What you say about Pearson not bringing salvation to people but bringing them to the notion that they are "already saved" is equally obnoxious--that's the same kind of rot the Course in Miracles people talk; and it gives license to any kind of behaviour because you are ultimately "forgiven" and "saved." Maybe Pearson could have come to the Manhattan "missionary weekend" a few months ago and tried to force his own way into the Arts organizations and communities (that was one of their goals.)

In any case, Fred is a brilliant man and I have enjoyed reading his far-reaching and well-thought-out posts. But you really need to believe Christ is the Son of God at very least to keep using this, so I will thank you for your patience of several weeks with somebody who does not believe it. You did me a real service, and you can afford to upgrade your own artistic tastes a little. It's not a problem whether there is good "Christian" or any other "religious" art. The problem is that there isn't much real art of any kind--just media.

In the meantime it is still true there wouldn't be the B Minor Mass or Notre Dame without Jesus, but if it had been up to him, there wouldn't have been any Parthenon either.

Better to be "lost."

[Patrick Mullins]

Beth, the problem is not "evangelical morons," just morons--period. Pearson may be heretical to the hicks, just false to me. Preaching salvation is not much worse than shoving the notion on people they are already "saved." That is the same rot the Course in Miracles people preach--and it excuses all behaviour on the human level. (I conceded that that is not done at all by Slacktivist.)

Fred is a brilliant man, and I have enjoyed spending a few weeks reading his intelligent and far-reaching posts. But you really need to believe Christ is the Son of God to keep using this, which I don't. I see him as having seen himself as a god instead of as a sage, as E.M.Cioran so succinctly puts it. It's incredible to think he "died for the sins of all mankind" and that anyone could possibly believe he held such sway.

And the problem is not anything to do with "Christian" or any other "religious" art. The problem is that there is not enough real art of any kind, and if you are the same BETH, there is plenty of room for both jazz and the high serialism of the "atonists." I prefer the former usually too, but the latter takes some real work and has some real rewards. Your mumbo jumbo writer was probably just as jealous of Pierre Boulez as Kyle Gann, the music critic for the Village Voice.

Thanks for your patience with me, but better to be "lost."

[Susanna]

I agree that there's an awful lot of drek in Christian music today, a lot of inane phrases repeated endlessly and tunelessly and called music. But there is some good, interesting music out there if you look hard enough. The 77s sing about their faith in a way that's interesting, not saccharine like Creed. And if you want to find music that will make you think and laugh and cry while tapping your toes, look up some old Steve Taylor songs - the man never met a subject too controversial to tackle. Oh, and Rich Mullins, a poet whose life was cut too short, who said a lot through innuendo and metaphor that couldn't be said as effectively or beautifully straight out.

Besides that, I still love the "old standards" of worship songs. Those folks back in the 1800's could write a tune of quality that the Nashville Song Machine just can't match today.

[Beth]

Patrick,
re: Mumbo Jumbo, you misunderstood. The bad guys are Atonists, NOT Atonalists. Atonism has nothing to do with music. I think Reed got the name from an abortive, early Egyptian form of monotheism, but his 'Atonists', like his 'Jes Grews' are entirely a product of his own imagination. I suspect the Atonists in the novel would despise Pierre Boulez as much as they despise Fats Waller. (I'm not really familiar with Boulez's work, but assuming it has anything to do with creativity and self-expression, it would be an anathema to the Atonists.)

I think you are also misunderstanding Bishop Pearson's teachings, though there the fault may well be mine. Probably it would be best to click the link I provided and let him speak for himself, but briefly, I think what he's saying is not, "You're all saved anyway, so go do what you want," but "God, in His love, has saved you all, so dedicate your life to doing His will, and loving Him in return." If there is someone in your own life who loves you, you probably love them and try to make them happy and to be a better person for their sake, not because you're afraid they'll torture you if you don't, but out of joy and gratitude for all that they have given you. Why should it be any different with God?

I am not a Christian by the way. My hymn goes, "My god, should he or she happen to actually exist, is a merciful god, I assume." ;-) I believe that God is unknowable and even God's existence is unknowable, but that doesn't blind me to the value of a true and loving faith any more than it blinds me to the dangers of a twisted, hate-filled one.

[Patrick Mullins]

I appreciate that, Beth, and I do realize I have a serious problem myself: I am so sick of seeing religious people's lack of humaneness(and their aggressiveness about it) on small and large scales, that I tend to jump the gun sometimes and make generalizations. I guess this site is about the best I have found where Christians and non-Christians actually fool me into not knowing what their religious affiliations are. Actually, I think that makes the site essentially a humanistic one, but never mind that. I appreciate the kindness and the intelligence that exists here; I still don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, but I also have never seen a Christian group that does practise the tenets of Christianity that are the same as the human ones of any first-rate thinking. Thank you again.

[J Mann]

I don't see the "gatekeeper" function you describe above, but see it more as marketing.

"Highway to Heaven," "Touched by an Angel," and "Joan of Arcadia" are all popular entertainment marketed to Christians, and they seem to do fine.

It may be true that most contemporary Christians don't see Lord of the Rings as contemporary Christian entertainment, but that doesn't mean that writers can't create recognizably Christian entertainment that they do recognize.

[bellatrys]

I think that everyone interested in the working of a belief system (doesn't matter which) but particularly in the historical issues concerning Christian Lit, ought to read Tolkien's essay On Fairy-Stories. It's a jam-packed feast of ideas, ranging from how to worldbuild successful alien planets (the "green sun" issue) to where the common mythic figures come from and why they work (*much* better than Campbell!) to what the legends and dreams of Immortals might be like (very important in *my* work) - but there is a lot about this problem, which casts light on LOTR.

He says that putting Christianity explicitly into fantasy *ruins* the fantasy. That's why he thought that the Arthurian cycles tended not to be as great as they could be. It limits them chronotemporaly, instead of universalizing them: he speaks of the Gospels as being true myths, and *all* myths as being true on some levels, (not as CSL said, "lies breathed through silver")

This is, I think, why LOTR is *the* epic of the technological age, where Stephen Lawhead will not endure I fear except as a curiosity.

It also *partly* explains why Christian art is so bad, usually - the "moral of the story" overwhelms the artistic demands (JRRT talks a lot about this problem in On Fairy-Stories, too, the author as artist vs author as human being) and hten there's the problem of "keeping it safe for the kiddies" (on which he has some snarky things to say, too.)

[bellatrys]

The other things that occur to me as why Cause-inspired art is often bad are the note Dorothy Sayers makes in 'Murder Must Advertise" which was set at a thinly-disgused version of the ad agency she worked at (she did some famous Guiness and Coleman's Mustard campaigns) - she has Wimsey observe that it's very hard to write good copy for something you really believe in, it always comes off stiff and wooden, and that's why sometimes they have to hand accounts off, because the people who really like the product do the worse job, whereas the best is often written completely insincerely.

I think the principle underlying may be that artistic objectivity is very difficult when the subject is close to your heart, rather than the sincerity itself being the problem.

One specific example that has always bugged me and which I want to bring up here since maybe someone else will know the series, is the Kathy Tyers rewrite of her space opera Firebird. When it came out I read it and enjoyed it as a light romp with a solid ethical foundation and a nice hint of an overarching metaphysics that fitted in with a "Christian Worldview" (this predated my becoming in order an anguished agnostic, then a Taoist, now a Taoist Catholic), but remained firmly in a futuristic, far-flung humanity like Star Wars.

Then she rewrote them, and filled them full of long preachy sermons, turned the hero who had a temper and pride issues into a disgusting plaster saint, made the heroine totally weak and needing the Servant Headship of her Male Saint, instead of him needing to learn things from her, too, got rid of all the aliens, and made the theology of a Redeemer explicit, and worse.

All the Christian Women's Bookgroup lists raved about how improved they were now.

I couldn't finish them without skimming, and I skipped the last books in the series.

Because the "worse" part was creating a shallow theodicy in which it was possible for the hero to wonder what his mother had done to deserve being "tested" by having his brother and family assassinated. And to set up a situation in which the niece is not only killed, but psychically raped first, then to plaster it all over with sanctimonious consolation - "She died young and pure and full of faith, and her sufferings were over quickly, and now she's in bliss" - and to in the author's note, admonish us not to think about things like that in RL, lest they shake our faith.

--I threw the books at the wall several times. And yet there was none of this intellectual and moral dishonesty, and retchworthy sermony prose, in the originals, which were slight but fun and intense in places.

IMO by shoehorning her theology into the books as the most important thing, it did disservice to both the fiction and the theology...

[bellatrys]

Oh, one last obsrevation, before I stop spamming your blog - the specifically-evangelical anti-metaphor, starkly-literal slant fits in with what CSL himself comments on, the hatred so many people have for fantasy - he talked about how weird it was to meet, iirc, a Jungian who couldn't stand sf or fairy-tales; she only liked dreams pinned down and dead like butterflies, I guess.

Going by mine own personal Pilgrim's - progress? regress? peregrinations, maybe - I think it comes down to a terror, not merely a fear but a positive *dread*, of uncertainty. Of "being wrong" about religion, to be sure, but in a vast and complex way: not the simple way of Pascal's Wager, but worse yet: the Deity could be real, and nothing like we imagine Him. (qv The Man Who Was Thursday.) There *could* be more things in heaven as well as earth than we allow in our narrow philosophies. What if we're mistaken, and there *are* aliens with six heads and tentacles and three sexes in heaven? The mind, threatening to explode, flees in self-preservation...

And thanks, Fred, for that brilliant speed-analysis of Prince Caspian. No wonder I grew up with such an irreverent and unimpressed attitude towards authority and bureaucracy: I'd already seen it dismissed in fantasy long before at an impressionable age! Hail the cheerful anarchy of the wood, "the white breast of the dim sea, and all dishevelled wandering stars--"

[Matt McIrvin]

The comments about overt preaching in Christian literature remind me, in a funny way, of Greg Egan. He's a great science-fiction writer, one of my favorites-- though obviously not for all tastes; he writes Idea Fiction of the hardest-edged variety. But every so often he puts in extremely heavy-handed advocacy for atheism, sometimes dripping with contempt for religion in general. I'm an atheist too-- I'm inclined to be with him on the theology, or lack thereof. But the really overt atheist preaching puts me off a bit anyway; it tends to take me out of the story, and it isn't as if I need to be convinced of anything on this score. I don't like the feeling that I'm supposed to like it just because on some level I agree with it. Philip K. Dick's forays into bizarre speculative nightmare theology were more interesting.

[Matt McIrvin]

I'd be disappointed with any heaven that *didn't* have aliens with six heads and tentacles and three sexes. (Cf. Mark Twain.)

[Eli]

Matt, I had a similar problem with the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman. I could tell that by the end there were some basic problems with narrative and character, but I could never be sure that I could judge it fairly as a story because I found the anticlericalism so heavy-handed. I mean, the guy proposed an infinite number of parallel universes and yet the only form of religion in any of them was basically the Spanish Inquisition. There's still some great stuff in those books but it seemed like Pullman ended up throwing most of it over the side in the pursuit of his Message.

[Scott Cattanach]

FYI, a comment on the article and Fred's posts:

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/000717.html