≡ Menu

What is “Christian Art”? – #2

When it comes to the difficulties of defining Christian art, The Lord of the Rings is a case in point. As much as Tolkien’s lotr-1-0658-the-shire.jpgepic trilogy is embraced by Christians, LotR is usually not considered Christian fiction. Wikipedia, in defining Christian literature, illustrates the sticking point:

Christian fiction is sometimes harder to define than Christian non-fiction. Christian themes are not always explicit. There is sometimes argument as to whether the works of a Christian author are necessarily Christian fiction. For example while there are undoubted Christian themes within The Lord of the Rings, many would not consider this to be a work of Christian fiction. . .

In the last few decades the existence of a Christian subculture, particularly in North America, has given rise to a specific genre of Christian novel, written by and for Christians and generally with explicit Christian themes. Such novels are often marketed exclusively to Christians and sold in Christian bookshops. The Christy Awards honour excellence in this genre.

Here, Christian fiction is defined as something “written by and for Christians” and characterized by its 7ortxank.gif“explicit Christian themes.” Those three earmarks — author, audience, message — serve as a barometer of contemporary Christian art. Furthermore (and maybe even more integral to the examination), is the recognition of “a Christian subculture” that “has given rise to a specific genre of Christian novel.”

But who is this Christian subculture and what role do they play in defining, driving — and/or policing — Christian art?

By current standards, Tolkien is only 1 of 3. He was definitely a Christian author. (In fact, J.R.R’s greatest accomplishment may, in the end, not be his fantasy trilogy, but his role in C.S. Lewis’ conversion.) Yet in regards to audience and message — two pivotal planks in the prevailing argument — he strikes out.

David Dark, in his book Everyday Apocalypse, expounds upon Tolkien’s “moral aversion” to message-driven fiction:

luthien_dancing_in_the_forest_resd.jpgIn his efforts to overcome the popular misreading of his work on Middle-Earth as a project in allegory, J.R.R. Tolkien expressed a distaste for the domineering quality of the allegorical while offering a helpful distinction: “I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader; and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

“Purposed domination” is a wonderfully illuminating phrase in Tolkien’s explanation not only in regard to what he assures us he isn’t doing in The Lord of the Rings but also concerning a mode of creative expression to which he feels an almost moral aversion. Purposed domination, we might say, is the method of propaganda. It leaves the audience with no room for “applicability,” and the propagandist wouldn’t have it any other way. The tightly controlled “message,” after all, was the point in the first place, not the dignity of the reader or the story (if we can even call it a story).

Dr. Ralph Wood, Professor of English at Baylor University and a Tolkien expert, in his wonderful essay, Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings: A Christian Classic Revisited, states that Tolkien, “. . .called The Lord of the Rings ‘a fundamentally religious and Catholic work.’ Its essential conflict, he insisted, concerns God’s ‘sole right to divine honour’ (Letters, 172, 243).” But despite the author’s stated intent, Wood affirms that “Tolkien’s work is not self-evidently Christian.”

And herein lies the rub.

rotk-2-3400-eye-sauron-2.jpgEven though J.R.R. Tolkien was a Christian, an expert at his craft, and his work “fundamentally religious,” it is the subtle, nuanced, non-explicit presentation of those themes that keeps him outside the camp of “Christian fiction.” In other words, the very thing Tolkien decried — i.e., “the purposed domination of the author” and unwillingness to allow “the freedom of the reader” — are the very things that cause many Christians to paint his masterpiece as secular.

I fear that we have collapsed the boundaries of Christian art so far, there’s no turning back. Unless there is “explicit Christian themes” and images or a “tightly controlled message,” the artist, no matter how Christian she is or how “fundamentally religious” her work, fall outside the pale of Christian art. What’s wrong with this picture? I can’t help but wonder how many great Christian writers, musicians and artists are not embraced by the “Christian subculture” simply because their work does not adhere to a predetermined template. Well, if it’s any consolation, neither was Tolkien.

In my next post, I’ll conclude with a suggested paradigm for judging Christian art. Peace.

{ 10 comments… add one }
  • Rebecca LuElla Miller February 26, 2007, 4:05 AM

    It’s as I suspected, Mike. We simply do not agree on the definition of “Christian” fiction. I will not take my meaning of the word “Christian” from Wikepedia. Why should I? The word “Christian” is Scriptural, and it’s meaning in context is clear. The word ‘fiction” is part of common parlance and needs no special explanation. So why do we sweat over this idea that there might be fiction that connects to following Christ?

    It has absolutely nothing to do with being explicit or who the target audience is. That some people have made it that is a shame. Perhaps instead of abandoning the term we should just write good Christian fiction and see what happens.

    God’s care, my friend.

    Becky

  • J. Mark Bertrand February 26, 2007, 4:33 AM

    You’re right, Mike. That *is* the rub. The people who define Christian fiction don’t believe that the truth about everything is explicitly Christian. As you say, some truth is considered Christian and some truth is considered secular. Now, what does it say about a Christian if he believes that a book with themes that could be summarized as “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not bear false witness,” “thou shalt not covet,” etc., is not explicitly Christian? To me, it suggests that his belief in creation isn’t very strong. Shouldn’t he take the view that *everything* is explicitly Christian? Isn’t that, in a sense, the truth he is fighting for with his explicit message? This is what I mean when I say these folks suffer from ‘worldview anxiety.’ They say they believe, then act as if what they believe isn’t really — isn’t totally — true.

    Becky, I don’t think the Wikipedia entry is an accurate definition of what the term ought to mean, but isn’t it a pretty good description of what it *does* mean in CBA? Recently, I’ve even noticed that some books published in CBA are being described as “not really Christian fiction” because they lack that ‘explicit message.’

  • Mike Duran February 26, 2007, 2:05 PM

    Hey, thanks for the comments! Becky, the Wikipedia quote doesn’t define Christian, but if it did, I’d be as leery of their definition as you. However, I do think Wikipedia’s summary of Christian fiction is fairly accurate. If Christian fiction “has absolutely nothing to do with being explicit,” then what is the criteria which makes it Christian enough? Obviously, there is some threshold a work must cross to be in or out of the genre. Like it or not, explicit Christian language, symbols and imagery are what defines Christian fiction. Becky, I’m unsure what you think is, or should be, the elements that distinguish fiction as Christian.

    Mark, your suggestion “that *everything* is explicitly Christian” would require a paradigm shift for many. The fact is that there is not one secular molecule in the universe. This is troubling for those of us who have been taught to compartmentalize life into camps of sacred and profane. Come to think of it, I believe I’m suffering the lingering effects of “worldview anxiety.”

  • dayle February 26, 2007, 2:51 PM

    Mike, I think time has labeled LOTR Christian fiction. Tolkien’s association with CS lewis also has that honor. I read the Hobbit and LOTR long before the movies. My first reaction wasn’t Wow, what a great piece of Christian fiction. IT was WOW, this is great literature.

    Because of his personal stature and beliefs, he was bulletproof to the type of criticism that Harry Potter and others come under for being mystical fantasies that might turn our children to the dark side.

    Therefore, Christians are quick to embrace it. “See pastor and mom and dad, it was written by a Christian, so we can watch it.”

    Only after discovering Toiken’s christianity, could I really see any deep christian themes. These themes are pretty universal to the genre. See Star Wars. ( the prophecies speak of a chosen one (luke) a child apparently born to simple farmers who would grow up to bring light and justice to the galaxy.)etc, etc, etc…

    I don’t beleive LOTR is great Christian fiction. IT is great Fiction, written by a christian. Whose light couldn’t help but shine through.

    dayle

  • J. Mark Bertrand February 26, 2007, 4:48 PM

    Christian themes vs. universal themes — erasing that distinction is the paradigm shift. And you’re right, Mike, it’s hard. I think of it in terms of the moral argument for God as C.S. Lewis developed it. Observing many cultures at many times, he sees this moral impulse, so that some things seem always to be wrong — which doesn’t make sense of morality is socially constructed. If there is this ‘law’ making itself felt everywhere (though it is admittedly obscured, suppressed and twisted as a result of the fall), then it must come from the lawgiver. And so on. It’s the same with the so-called universsal themes. A Christian’s assumption ought to be that their very universality points to their “Christianness,” since in our parlance the words Christian and true are almost interchangeable. (Which is why don’t often say things like “It may be true, but it isn’t Christian.”)

    But all of this, of course, has nothing to do with the *genre* currently defined as “Christian fiction,” where there really does seem to be a requirement that Christian authors write for a Christian audience and include (ironically, given the ‘preaching to the choir’ nature of the project) “explicit” Christian themes. That’s why one of the questions you will often be asked about your book, if you’re operating in these cirlces is, “what’s the spiritual take-away?”

  • J. Mark Bertrand February 26, 2007, 4:49 PM

    Oh, and Dayle, I’m just picking up on the phrase you used, not disagreeing with the thrust of your comment. Hopefully that comes through.

  • Michael Ehret February 27, 2007, 7:44 PM

    Mark: Is asking what the “spiritual take away” is a bad thing? I’m unclear whether you feel that is a compromise of some sort to steer clear of. I would think, whether you writing “Christian fiction” or whether you’re a Christian writing fiction, that there would definitely be some kind of spiritual takeaway that seeps out through your worldview, if nowhere else. In fact, I don’t see how it could be otherwise in either case.

    Or is your comment more directed at what the CBA publishers want to hear when they ask that question?

Leave a Reply