What about the Theology
This entry was posted on Monday, October 15. 2007 and is filed under Theology,Posts by Rebecca Luella Miller.
Award-winning Christian fantasy author Karen Hancock posted some interesting thoughts today on her blog Writing from the Edge. In short, she is discussing the expression of theology in fiction.
I found this particularly interesting because the topic came up in a conversation I had, and am posting at A Christian Worldview of Fiction, with J. Mark Bertrand.
Clearly, the novel that Hancock refers to would fall under the classification of futuristic, and as she points out, the author is using his fiction as the vehicle to propound his beliefs about the end times. And shouldn't that be true?
Perhaps a more skillful author will not be so heavy-handed, but shouldn't what a writer believes to be true come out in his fiction? Otherwise don't we have "milk-toast" fiction, the kind that is palatable to all and informative to none? And not just "informative" intellectually but emotionally as well. In other words, when fiction resonates, it seems to me, it does so because it "hits home"—it says something I recognize as true and see in a new way how it connects to me where I live life. That's the kind of fiction that can change me and that will stay with me long after I'm closed the back cover. It's the kind of fiction I want to tell others to read.
But here's the question. How theologically correct must we be? Especially in fantasy.
Author Mike Duran, currently known best for his short stories, posted an interesting question today on his blog Decompose: Can vampires be good? He explores the symbolism of vampires to a certain extent, but focuses on the point that vampires are fictitious.
Still, it raised the point in my mind once again—how theologically correct must we be?
Well over a year ago I read a supernatural suspense book by an author I enjoy considerably. That book, however, is not one I would recommend, largely because of the theology.
Here's where my thinking is right now. Just as in historical fiction, when a known individual acts in a historical context, the author must stay true to the known. In other words, good historical fiction could not have someone else other than Paul Revere taking the ride to warn of the British coming. Could they color the details leading up to the event? It's been done in books such as Johnny Tremain.
So in Christian fiction of any stripe, I believe when a Biblical truth is part of the story—an identifiable Biblical principle or historical event or character—the same principle must apply. I don't think we have freedom to toy with what God has laid out.
Can we make vampires good? Sure. How about wizards? Well, yes, I think so, as long as the wizard isn't calling up the dead or doing some kind of fortune-telling, the wizard can be good too, because he would then be a fictional character.
But here's another question. Why do we have to walk the line and deal with someone else's created characters? Or with Biblical entities. Why not make new, fresh, imaginative characters and let them tell the truth about God and the world?
Comments
| Page: 1 of 1 |
-
Monday, October 15. 2007
Donna swanson wrote:
I agree with Rebecca that any fiction which touches on historical fact, whether secular or Christian must remain true to the facts.
I have written novels in each category, namely one in which the fictional story parallels that of the Biblical narrative and a series which looks at good and evil from a framework of a 'made up' world and time.
In each, I was always aware of the parameters in which the characters lived and acted. Any novel, if it is to be understood by the reader, must have rules which do not change at the whim of the author. If A is a true reality within the context of the novel, it can not suddenly be turned into B without sacrificing the integrity of the whole.
I remember reading a scifi novel many years ago - or rather, attempting to read it - in which the author 'made-up' a language which he insisted on using throughout the book. The reader either had to play code breaker or give up the story.
To parody a popular commercial, "You don't fool with your reader."
We all live by rules: of society, of our faith, of nature. If we are to imitate reality, our characters and situations must do the same.
Reply to this -
Tuesday, October 16. 2007
Valerie L Smith wrote:
By all means, the author should remain true to his own beliefs and viewpoints. However, if it his goal to create stories or characters that are theologically correct, he should prayerfully consider what he is writing. If our purpose goes beyond mere entertainment and is to reach those that are lost or to find those that have wandered, we will strike a damaging blow to our cause if our writing reflects something different than what is in the Bible. It could indicate that we are unaware of what is written or that we simply don't think it's that important. Either way, it could be a costly mistake in the case for Christian fiction and Christianity.
Reply to this -
Tuesday, October 16. 2007
Kathy wrote:
I agree that the author should be true to his/her faith and understanding of the gospel as well as the various aspects of plot and character consistency, etc. However, one must always remember that there are many doctrines (or interpretations of them) among true Christians. Various understandings of the end-times prophecies DO exist and are not necessarily heretical! I attend a very large Presbyterian church and, while our pastor has preached on the Lord's Second Coming, premillennial dispensation doctrines were not part of the teaching. And anyone who has followed the ongoing debate on pre-, post-, or a-millennial teachings knows, the discussion on this probably won't stop until the Lord does come back! Then we'll all KNOW what the answer is. And ww all know He won't allow any "I told you sos!"
Reply to this -
Tuesday, October 16. 2007
Rebecca LuElla Miller wrote:
Hahah--Kathy, I tend to think we'll all be surprised. That God will not engineer the end of time in just the way any of the prevalent theologies suggest.
True to our beliefs. Yes, that should be apparent. But I guess I was wondering more accurately how "complete" our theology needs to be. I mean, is it OK to show the crucifixion without the resurrection? To show creation without the fall? To show the fall without redemption? It seems like there are truths that don't tell the whole truth. Do we mislead readers by leaving out the parts that would paint a more complete picture, or can we say we are preparing the soil in the heart of readers who respond to our writing?
Becky
Reply to this-
Tuesday, October 16. 2007
Keanan Brand wrote:
This is a tough question. I've been asking it of myself in one of my fantasy pieces: do I present the crucifixion (or some representation thereof), or do I leave it out? I am being tugged toward including it, and the resurrection. Some might think that pushes the story from the realm of fantasy over into allegory, or that I risk alienating readers. No matter. If I am going to present Christianity, even in fantasy form, I will have to include the very elements that make it Christianity, even if God goes by a different name, and even if the death of Christ is shown as otherwhere than on a cross.
There is room for less "in your face" theology in fiction, but for the novel I'm writing, I think the toughness of Christianity needs to be present.
Just my two cents.
Reply to this -
Wednesday, October 17. 2007
Kathy wrote:
Actually I've thought for years that He has something really wondrous and surprising for us. After all, we all know that the educated Jews of Jesus' time didn't recognize His messianic claims. They were SURE they understood the OT Scriptures and how it was all going to happen. And He just didn't fit their understanding. So, that's why I will hold strongly to the teaching that He WILL return but on the how & when, I leave that to Him which is where it belongs. Just doing my best each day to please Him is enouhg of an undertaking!
Reply to this
-
Tuesday, October 16. 2007
Keanan Brand wrote:
-
Wednesday, October 17. 2007
Rebecca LuElla Miller wrote:
Kathy, I'm with you!
Keanan, you've addressed the issue for your writing. Maybe that's all we can do.
Some people say Lord of the Rings wasn't a Christian trilogy because ... I honestly forget their rationale. The fact is, there are types of Christ running through the books, from Tom Bombadil to Sam Gamgee. There was sacrifice and resurrection burden-bearing and a returning king.
Was it all orderly, laid out as systematic theology? No. That's the part I don't think needs to be in fiction.
And I don't believe all books have to have the whole story. Again, looking at Lord of the Rings. What Tolkien accomplished took a trilogy.
Sometimes I think we forget that and try to do in a single volume what Lewis din in the entire Chronicles.
Becky
Reply to this -
Thursday, October 18. 2007
J. Mark Bertrand wrote:
Well, you know my answer, since I gave it in the interview, but I want to reiterate the distinction between "complete" truth and "profound." If the idea behind the question of how correct a writer's theology must be is whether he can safely leave things out, then I think the answer has to be yes. Fiction seems to me to be a medium better suited to depth than breadth. I think it's legitimate to explore a single idea, without having to pack them all in (or even the "essentials"). So a story about the soul-destroying effect of coveting is, in my view, going to qualify as Christian, because it unpacks one of the commandments.
I don't think a story has to have a Christ figure to be Christian, in other words. Typology is just one of the many options. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong about the Christ-figure approach, and I'm a great fan of this way of sublimating the Gospel in a story structure. I just want to see the means as something flexible, a space where the author can find new expressions, so that means and end don't become confused (as I think they sometimes are in Christian fiction talk).
Reply to this
| Page: 1 of 1 |