≡ Menu

Christian Fiction’s “Non-Erogenous Zone”

It used to be said that the only acceptable form of sex in Christian fiction was that which occurred within marriage. But apparently even sex between a husband and wife is… edgy.

Catherine Richmond’s Spring for Susanna, a historical romance published by Thomas Nelson, has been getting some great reviews. And then there are Amazon reviewers like these who had an issue with the novel’s portrayal of sex:

J.Gossert: “There are some sexual references like nothing I have ever experienced in a ‘Christian’ novel before. Nothing overt or anything that made me uncomfortable – just different from anything I’ve read before. That said, I’m not sure this is a book for younger girls.”

F. Murrell: “Also as a note to parents – if you don’t want your young girls reading about sex after marriage then don’t let them read this book. If you want them to know what goes on between a married couple than this book will be fine. I was rather surprised about the descriptiveness of this area of marriage. Most Christian fiction tends to lean on the prudish side. This book does not.”

momof2: “…there was a lot of sexual references. Nothing inappropriate, but I wouldn’t feel free recommending the book to a friend who was single.”

leftyjewel: “I could have overlooked [the novel’s weaknesses] had it not been for the sexual descriptions throughout the book. I found them to be inappropriate for The Christian fiction market. I choose to read Christian fiction because I want to read a satisfying love story with wholesome values. Many will probably not find anything wrong with this book; however I would not recommend it for young unmarried women. We have enough explicit detail in the secular market.”

Frankly, I’m not sure whether to applaud Thomas Nelson and Ms. Richmond for pushing a much-needed envelope, or uncork a rant about those readers who want sterilized fiction.

In fairness, some of the reviewers above, though not offended by the story’s sexual references, recognize its potential to fluster others. I believe cautioning readers is a responsible thing to do. What I don’t get are those who assert that sex — even sex between a married couple — is somehow inappropriate for the Christian market.

Sex within marriage is a core value for many evangelicals. So why can’t we celebrate and write about that value in our stories?

Thankfully, there are other reader / reviewers who push back.

Deborah at Books, Movies and Chinese Food says it well in her Book Review: Spring for Susanna:

I’ve been reading some reviews where people are offended or uncomfortable with the sexual content in this book. Ok, I’m going to be straightforward honest here. As someone who reads both general market AND Christian fiction, this book is extremely tame. What I got from this book was a husband and wife, who are newly married, started to enjoy all the benefits of marriage. They don’t even consummate their marriage for several weeks. And when they do, they both discover that they enjoy it. What a foreign concept, a married couple who enjoys sex with each other! Seriously, it’s actually quite refreshing to see a husband and wife love each other and enjoy being with each other. It’s wonderful to see the passion out on display.

…If I hadn’t seen those reviews beforehand (or actually even afterward as well), I honestly would have never thought twice about those scenes in this book. To me, they are normal. To readers of non Christian fiction, they are very tame.

By general market standards, Deborah suggests this novel is “tame.” And perhaps that’s the real problem: Many Christian readers do not read in the mainstream. We are so insulated in our reading that sex — even sex portrayed between married couples — is scandalous. 

Are we really at the point where NO SEX is the only acceptable form of sex in Christian fiction?

Anyway, props to Catherine Richmond and Thomas Nelson for taking a risk on Spring for Susannah. I just hope Christian readers will plan on catching up sometime soon.

{ 67 comments… add one }
  • E. Stephen Burnett July 7, 2011, 5:56 AM

    Sex portrayed (or done) in a Biblical marital context = awesome.

    Specific descriptions, what went where, heavy breathing, sweating, tangled sheets, whatever = unnecessary temptation for most readers (or viewers).

    Scripture itself seems to show excellent balance, in The Song of Solomon.

    • Carradee July 7, 2011, 6:17 AM

      Even the Song of Solomon gets graphic in its poetic way, if you process what those analogies are *really* talking about. But most folks don’t think that through. (I’d give an example, but the one that comes to mind is probably R-rated. ^_^ )

      Frankly, as someone who reads mostly mainstream fiction, I’d be elated to encounter a book with a happily married couple that isn’t hung up on the “need” to get laid.

      Hrm, hm. Pretty sure I’ve never heard of anyone dying from a lack of sex.

      I’m hearing echoes of the gnostic heresies in the “Even married couples shouldn’t be having explicit sex” mindset. :-/

    • Mike Duran July 7, 2011, 6:55 AM

      Stephen, there’s two reasons I hedge against your point: (1) As Carradee mentions, The Song of Solomon does get pretty steamy. So if we’re using it as our standard, I believe the “explicit” bar is raised not lowered. (2) I’m uncomfortable using Scripture as the ultimate rule for defining what Christian fiction should be. As far as a theological / worldview framework, yes. But (a) It’s not fiction, (b) It’s goal is not to teach us HOW to tell stories, and (c) Even so, it contains some very edgy tales. Thanks for commenting, Stephen!

      • Eric July 7, 2011, 7:24 AM

        Song of Solomon is arguably not even the most explicit book in the Bible, for that matter. Ezekiel 23 has some downright graphic descriptions of prostitution (they sure weren’t married!), without the benefit of Solomon’s flowery metaphors. Definitely a hard R rating at very least. And it begins, “The word of the Lord came to me, saying…” Oh, and it’s fictional, an allegory for the spiritual adultery of Israel.

        Granted, the point of the passage seems to be to make the reader recoil from the smuttiness of sin. But you definitely couldn’t put most of the Lord’s phrases in any “Christian fiction” I’ve read.

        • Jessica Thomas July 7, 2011, 8:11 AM

          Raisin cakes anyone?

          The fact is if someone tried to sell Song of Solomon to a publisher today, it wouldn’t fly. Some of the metaphors are…out there… I realize it was a different time, so you really have to read into the text to figure out what actually going on.

          Heh, as a women, I actually take offense to some of the metaphors. But, I know, I know, they wrote differently then.

          Still, too much metaphor makes an intimate scene plain corny. Some realism keeps it from turning too goofy.

    • E. Stephen Burnett July 7, 2011, 7:20 AM

      They don’t even consummate their marriage for several weeks.

      I missed that the first time. Now that’s just silly and strange.

      Yet the way to flush out these un-Biblical, Gnostic assumptions is not critiquing the fruits (not saying anyone here is doing that — it’s just my instinct!), but yanking out the bad roots. Physical stuff is not Guilty Until Proven Innocent. The Devil can’t own Things. God is sovereign. He will redeem not just His people’s souls but His whole physical creation, making it into the New Heavens and New Earth.

      So Carradee, I think I can help put your rightful suspicions of Gnostic strains “to rest.” (Ba-DUM, tisssh!)

      Even the Song of Solomon gets graphic in its poetic way, if you process what those analogies are *really* talking about. But most folks don’t think that through. (I’d give an example, but the one that comes to mind is probably R-rated. ^_^ )

      Why not? Spices. Gardens. Tasting fruits. Perfumes. Climbing a tree to grasp onto grapes. … How’s that?

      Yes, this is “graphic,” yet beautifully, subtly so. As some of the best (and non-Gnostic) Scripture teachers I’ve listened to and read, have said, it’s a perfect balance between subtlety and wink-wink, nudge-nudge. It almost gives away the joke, or removes the veil, to talk about the parallels too much. They’re too much fun to find out privately! and best of all, with someone special, in marriage.

      Frankly, as someone who reads mostly mainstream fiction, I’d be elated to encounter a book with a happily married couple that isn’t hung up on the “need” to get laid.

      Agreed. Christians do need to grow and realize that physical pleasure, with commitment, is a God-given desire. Plenty of our nonfiction is exposing and laying this out (Ba-DUM, tisssh!), but our fiction is either hung up on “not even a hint of God-honoring sex at all, ever” (un-Biblical) or else “put in Edginess™ for its own sake and/or to Fix the Problem” — which seems to miss the point that sin and nastiness serve a purpose, and not just to Fix a Problem, but because Biblical, real redemption is not G-rated.

      I’m hearing echoes of the gnostic heresies in the “Even married couples shouldn’t be having explicit sex” mindset. :-/

      Amen and agreed again. I call bullshenigan on that notion. The Devil doesn’t “own” sex or any particular sexual act. If I am using a Thing to sin, it’s not the Thing’s fault; it’s my fault. To think otherwise is not only Gnostic, but Pelagian.

      From Mike:

      Stephen, there’s two reasons I hedge against your point: (1) As Carradee mentions, The Song of Solomon does get pretty steamy. So if we’re using it as our standard, I believe the “explicit” bar is raised not lowered.

      And yet the steaminess is tasteful. Maybe we have different definitions, but here is how I consider the wrong kind of steaminess: graphic descriptions of what goes where, heaving this-or-that, tangled limbs, blah blah blah. One can get the point across, as Scripture does (and even director Christopher Nolan) without indulging overmuch.

      In fact, restraint often makes for better story. (Example, The Dark Knight didn’t need to show the Joker slitting someone’s throat. The impact was greater because he cut away just in time, then came back to show the result only.)

      (2) I’m uncomfortable using Scripture as the ultimate rule for defining what Christian fiction should be. As far as a theological / worldview framework, yes. But (a) It’s not fiction

      Amen to that! (Except for Christ’s parables, of course!)

      (b) It’s goal is not to teach us HOW to tell stories

      … Which is where the concept of “be careful not to tempt others” point would originate. What’s helped me is noticing that in the epistles, Paul never warned against seeing acts of violence, or reading literature with “Bad Language” or un-Biblical worldviews (and he himself read Greek poetry at least once — Acts 17). He did, however, constantly warn against sexual immorality. Maybe some readers can take in graphic descriptions of sexual acts, even if their authors attempt to show their contexts (outside of marriage: harmful; in marriage, God-glorifying). Yet for many readers, especially folks with healthy imaginations, they’ll be able to “see” the scene just as vividly as one would see naked people jostling on a movie or TV screen.

      (c) Even so, it contains some very edgy tales.

      Edginess for a purpose, though: to point to the Gospel. A lot of the cries for “edginess” I’ve been reading (though not yours) seem to assume a goal only of Fixing the Problem. Any edginess in our stories, I think, should be with the goal of showing that redemption isn’t G-rated. God is glorious, human rebels suck, and God is worth getting rid of any of our crap — and thanks to Him alone, He in Christ died to take His own penalty for our rebellion. That’s edgy, but for a purpose: truth, victory, and redemption to delight proactively in Him.

      (I’m self-plagiarizing, by the way, likely from this article.)

      Eh, you know all this stuff! But by now you may also know that I love to point it out — and have a tendency to want to Fix Problems myself instead of primarily glorify God, and secondarily Fix the Problems.

      Thanks for commenting, Stephen!

      And thank you, sir, for a stimulating (Ba-DUM, tisssh!) discussion.

      • Tony July 7, 2011, 9:39 PM

        Wow.

        Great response. . .

  • Bruce Hennigan July 7, 2011, 6:23 AM

    Hey, deacons have genitals, too!

  • Jessica Thomas July 7, 2011, 6:45 AM

    Okay…hold on…wait for me to stop chuckling.

    “if you don’t want your young girls reading about sex after marriage then don’t let them read this book.”

    What?? Really? You mean, give them a healthy portrayal of sex to counter the unhealthy images that bombard them day in and day out? Unless you’re really successful at keeping your daughter or son under a rock… Which I don’t agree with anyway, because, at some point…hmmm…they’re going to find out sex is…fun. And then what? Nobody’s talked to them about sex, even to tell them the difference between right and wrong, so they have no moral compass. Either that, or they become so afraid of sex that they’re robbed of the ability to enjoy what is a perfectly natural human fuction.

    “They don’t even consummate their marriage for several weeks.”

    What?? Is this for real? Seriously? Are there real people like this?

    • Deborah July 7, 2011, 6:56 AM

      “They don’t even consummate their marriage for several weeks.”

      yeah in the book, she’s pretty much a mail-order bride so they’re still trying to get to know each other for a while. plus she wasn’t taught anything about males, relationships or sex so she’s pretty clueless about what happens in the beginning.

    • xdpaul July 7, 2011, 6:59 AM

      Knowing nothing of the book, it is possibly a historic fiction or perhaps an arranged marriage that necessitated some relationship building beforehand.

      Yes, there are real people like that. I agree, it would be unusual if it is in a modern American setting, but not unheard of. I know a local church that still has an old guideline in its charter of allowing 6 months for a marriage to be consummated before addressing the problem as a congregation!

      • Jessica Thomas July 7, 2011, 8:06 AM

        True, knowing that it was a “mail order bride” situation gives it more credibility. Yes, in an American context, waiting to consumate a marriage is a foreign concept, which perhaps only points to how jaded the culture has made me. Other cultures do things differently. My Indian friend had an arranged marriage for that matter. And I admit to wondering how exactly they…well, nevermind.

    • Sherry Thompson July 7, 2011, 2:36 PM

      Jessica, I believe you were the first person who mentioned young unmarried men:
      “if you don’t want your young girls reading about sex after marriage then don’t let them read this book.” — from a reviewer

      What?? Really? You mean, give them a healthy portrayal of sex to counter the unhealthy images that bombard them day in and day out? Unless you’re really successful at keeping your daughter or son under a rock… —– part of your comment

      I agree with what most people are saying here–that it can be a good thing for young people to be subtly & tastefully exposed to to sexuality between a married couple.
      What I find strange about the reviewer is that everyone wants to protect the young unmarried girl. What about the boys?

      • Sherry Thompson July 7, 2011, 2:49 PM

        Sorry! Somehow I pubbed this before I was finished.
        First, from what I can tell without reading the book, no one except children and many pre-teens should -need- to be protected from the very subtly edgy contents of this book.
        In fact,if read along with some subtle input by a parent, it evidently can serve as an example of healthy marital sexual relations.

        As for the reviewers, the repeated reference to protecting young unmarried girls from reading this book–while not mentioning doing the same for young men–shows a double standard reminiscent of the non-Christian one in place when I was growing up. (late 1950’s-early 60’s) What I mean is this: Teenagers who had premarital sex were treated totally differently according to gender: boys were “sowing their wild oats” before marriage and for some that was encouraged. (Possibly to keep them from sowing their wild oats after?) Young girls were irrevocably “ruined”.
        So would these reviewers going “tsk-tsk” permit their teenaged sons to read the book?

        • Jessica Thomas July 7, 2011, 2:55 PM

          Having two young sons, I TOTALLY agree with you! It’s just as important to teach boys and guide them in these matters. I actually fear the girls in this day and age. They are so forward, offering themselves so easily. To be honest, as a mother, I’m quite petrified by that.

        • Abigail D. October 24, 2011, 12:43 AM

          I agree that double standards are bad. But may I offer the benefit of the doubt to those reviewers who mentioned young girls (but not boys) and suggest that perhaps they are simply acknowledging, even if unconsciously, that the target audience for this book is overwhelmingly female, and that the few males who do read it are likely to be adults, not teens-or-younger?

  • Bruce Hennigan July 7, 2011, 7:10 AM

    Okay, so I wasn’t going to weigh in on this. But, when my son was growing up in the late nineties, we had open, honest conversations about sex. What I tried to make him understand was that sex without love and commitment is just physical pleasure. While it feels good, it is ultimately not fulfilling. I didn’t try to hide the facts of the world from him. In fact, we even went to see R rated movies together (gasp!). What I wanted him to learn was how to think critically about what he was exposed to. How to gauge the emptiness of our culture’s point of view about sex and to realize that our hypersexed society is the result of rampant consumerism and commercialism because sex sells. He waited until he was married. I was proud of him because it was a decision he and God made together. He did not let anyone tell him how to behave.
    Contrast that with one of his best friends who was home schooled (Nothing wrong with this, by the way) and his parents did not allow him to watch television, access the internet, read anything but “wholesome” Christian books. The minute this kid got in my back seat when we were carpooling him and my son to school, he whipped out his stolen game console and played games. When he was over at our house, he watched tv. When he got out of high school, he went, as my Mommy would say, “Hog wild!” and got into drugs, sex, and, you guessed it, rock and roll (Just kidding.)

    My point is, we can ignore these issues, particularly in our writing, or we can address them, I guess tastefully, and show the emotional bankruptcy of a sinful lifestyle and the beauty of love, romance, and healthy sexual intimacy in marriage. That may seem “sanitized” but we should, and that is the key word, should be able to show the unseemly side of real life as a juxtaposition to the scriptural side of real life. I wrestled with this in my third book. One of my main characters has an affair and I had to decide how explicit to be in the key seduction scene where they end up cheating on their spouses. Yes, I mentioned tangled sheets! But, I refrained from anatomical descriptions and the book was accepted for publication. I guess we’ll see if that scene makes it through the final editing phase.

    Good post, Mike. I’m not sure there is an easy answer to this conundrum.

  • Tim Ward July 7, 2011, 7:38 AM

    I also applaud Thomas Nelson and Catherine for publishing something many will find offensive. Is it appropriate though to ask how the sex is described which is offending people? I’m curious if it is innuendo in their conversation, the open desire to have sex, or describing the act. That info would help if anyone can enlighten us so we can better analyze this example.

    As far as Stephen’s comment about unnecessary temptation, I feel like that is an impossible hog to tie. For CBA, it may seem fit to leave the scene at the point of action, but even then people could still be tempted. I see stories that include sex within marriage as having just as much potential to tempt the unmarried to lust or as they do to be jealous. Heck, you could even tempt them to be jealous over the nice house or car that they drive. Where does it end? I’m not trying to attack Stephen’s point or anything, because I think it is valid, I just see that as a slippery slope which could unnecessarily limit what we put in our stories.

    So if the goal is trying to avoid people being tempted, how would you portray a healthy marriage without the possibility that some will be jealous? Is our goal really to avoid tempting everyone, or just portraying truth that best fits the purpose of the story? Is that an adequate distinction in motives?

    Also, I would hope young readers would be able to discern what is appropriate for them to read based on the setting of the book. For example, why would a young unmarried person read about newlyweds if they are going to be offended by the inclusion of sex in the character’s lives? If you want to read about being a newlywed, then sex should be addressed. It seems some disagree with this point, and I don’t find any justification for that. If someone’s not ready to read about sex, then they shouldn’t be reading a story about newlyweds. Right? I assume the point of including sex in this book isn’t pornographic in nature, but to portray their lives. If that’s true, then this sounds totally reasonable.

    • Tim Ward July 7, 2011, 7:45 AM

      Sorry, I read this over a few times before publishing, but after I did, the first line caught me. I should have said that I applaud them for not restraining their fiction based on the potential that some may be offended. The point of my post was that if we do that, then we go down a slippery slope of writing the next Care Bears movie.

  • Brenda Anderson July 7, 2011, 8:04 AM

    Regardless of the argument, apparently the buying public likes this book as it made the Evangelical Christian Publisher’s Association’s top 20 list for July (http://www.christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/fiction-current.php). Quite a feat for a debut author. But really, it’s no surprise to me that buyers are craving books with more realism.

  • Vic DiGital July 7, 2011, 8:06 AM

    Not having read the book (nor any plans to, lol), my only question is HOW is the sex portrayed? If it’s graphic in any way, if it offers any sort of details of body parts and physical/physiological reactions, then it’s crossing a line that’s not necessary. To say that because it’s descriptions about sex within a marriage that it makes it okay is ridiculous. If that’s the criteria, then I’m going to go find some porn featuring only married couples. Extreme example, to be sure, but what’s the difference? Do I need to see it (or read about it graphically) to feel like a grown-up and that I’m experiencing grown-up portrayals of something?

    It’s one thing to discuss actual sexual situations between actual married people. But if it’s fictional characters, then it doesn’t matter if they are ‘married’.

    Just to be clear, I’m not opposed to sex in books or movies, and as a point of reference, my favorite book series is George R.R. Martin’s “Game of Thrones” series, which is loaded with frank language and ‘adult situations’. But I expect that sort of thing in non-Christian books/media. I’m almost never surprised when I see it in there, but I’m often disappointed it went there, especially when it didn’t otherwise need it. I see that a LOT, in all genres, where an author will stick crap in just to seem ‘edgy’ or grown-up.

    The reason why using the Song of Solomon is pointless to justify anything is because that book was personally approved by God. Unless God’s given a new book His stamp of approval, you really can’t use that as a rationale for what is considered ‘acceptable for Christians”, at least from a Biblical standpoint.

    Again, not having read the book in question, I can’t say if I think IT went across the line, but that’s how I feel about “the line” in general. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go download some good Christian porn (featuring only married couples).

    • Katherine Coble July 7, 2011, 9:12 AM

      Word. I love me some George RR Martin. (five days and counting!!!)

      • Vic DiGital July 7, 2011, 9:18 AM

        I’m doing a full re-read of the books in preparation. I haven’t read them since 2003, and I’ve held off on reading “Feast for Crows” as I wanted to read both Feast and “Dance With Dragons” concurrently (I’m sure by the time I get to these last two books, someone will have created a nifty chart showing what chapters from each book to read in which order.)

        I’d forgotten how masterfully they were written. Every page is a joy to read.

  • Jill July 7, 2011, 8:57 AM

    This is irresponsible. Statistics show that sex with mail-order brides is 50% more pleasurable than with the local girls of the congregation. Is this what we want, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, for our young men to read this filth and be tempted to order exotic brides for themselves, thereby eschewing our plain Christian maidens?

    Learning to divorce pleasure from the act of procreation is a difficult one. Never the less, it is of such great importance that it will take time and much practice. My advice is to bite your tongue and keep at it–over and over again if you have to. Your reward is in heaven.

    • Jessica Thomas July 7, 2011, 9:24 AM

      Hilarious, Jill. Thanks for the laugh.

      One comment to Vic…I’m just trying to process this…so you are against the reader having any kind of visceral reaction to a story?

      I personally strive to give my readers an emotional and physical response. I want them to be so engrosed that they feel like they are living the moment themselves. It seems you are suggesting my attempt to create such a visceral reaction is sinful, particularly during an intimate scene (by the way, I don’t describe body parts, but I don’t shy away from trying to invoke an emotional and/or physical response either). Perhaps that makes my work smutty…but I have been under the assumption that it makes for good fiction. Otherwise, we don’t feel along with our characters. They become cardboard or white-washed.

      Maybe I’m wrong here, but I don’t think it is sinful for a married man to look at another woman, or a married woman to look at another man and find them attractive, or to have “thoughts” quickly flash through their mind. It becomes sinful when those thoughts are replayed over and over. But to constantly whip ourselves everytime we have a random passing thought is quite unhealthy, I think.

      Further, I don’t think it is wrong for a woman to read a somewhat “stimulating” story and come away thinking…”Okay…where’s my husband.” That’s actually healthy for the husband and wife relationship, in my opinion. Sometimes we need to be reminded what those butterflies felt like, and fiction can help us remember those feelings of courtship.

      • Vic DiGital July 7, 2011, 10:00 AM

        I’m not against visceral reactions. If you’re at all familiar with Game of Thrones, it’s nothing BUT visceral. My only issue is that if one is presenting a book with the veneer of “Christian”, and it’s being marketed to Christians (especially in the Christian romance genre), then that comes with a certain set of expectations, unfair or puritanical though they may be.

        They way I look at what should or shouldn’t be appropriate for CHRISTIAN fiction is if I would show/describe it to my child in those terms. While I have had frank discussions about sex with my (now seventeen year old) son, never once did I feel the need, nor would it have ever been appropriate to phrase it in the context of “Well, two married adults have what’s called ‘sex’, which is perfectly okay if you’re married. When mommy and daddy get in the bed, daddy likes to run his hand up mommy’s bare thigh. Mommy sometimes lets out a squeal…”, etc. By that time, my son would not thinking of how wonderful the union of a man and woman is in a committed, married relationship, he’s thinking about other things.

        How detailed or graphic or ‘real’ does sex need to be in a book for it to be HONEST. I’ve seen HUNDREDS of PG movies where the sex is implied and never had to see it presented graphically for me to “get” it. I know any of us that have children CRINGE when we showed them a G-rated movie (or heavily ‘family’ marketed PG film), and they slipped in something that was totally inappropriate. Dreamworks is good/bad about this. Was it more ‘real’ for a character to say “damn” in a PG family film? Absolutely. Our kids hear ten times worse at school every day. But was it at all necessary? Never.

        And to be totally honest, I find it incredibly LAZY when an author or movie-maker has to resort to titillation. It’s far more interesting when they find creative ways to present some topics. Case in point is the Game of Thrones TV show. Absolutely ridiculous amount of sex and nudity that wasn’t needed to get the point across that “This isn’t your father’s Lord of the Rings”. It ended up being nudity and sex for the sake of it being on HBO, and that’s what HBO is known for. Almost derailed what was otherwise a masterpiece of television.

        And going back to purely a Christian standpoint on this, yes, we all have those fleeting thoughts that go through our minds, and I don’t believe it’s a sin when those happen, but it DOES start to veer that way when we dwell on it, as you said. Writing about it at length or in detail in a novel is dwelling on it. When the Biblical advice for such thoughts is to FLEE those situations, I can’t think it’s a good thing for us as supposed Christian authors to bake those very situations into our books and to justify them on the basis of saying “Song of Solomon was worse”.

        And going back to my porn analogy/joke (it WAS a joke), if it’s okay for a woman to come away from reading a stimulating book and looking for her husband, then there’s no room for condemnation for when a man watches porn and then goes looking for his wife. Is porn itself wrong? Or is it only wrong if I don’t use it correctly?

        My overall point is, there’s enough porn/graphic sex in books/profanity/adult situations in every aspect of everyday life and on every channel on TV and in books and at the movies. If I NEED that level of ‘real’, I can find it inside of ten seconds. It was nice that for a little while at least, there was a refuge from that. Not anymore.

        • Jessica Thomas July 7, 2011, 3:00 PM

          Thanks for the dialogue. I’m about to write an intimate scene between husband and wife and these are things I need to think about beforehand.

          I suspect I will go too far for typical CBA readers, but I think it’s important to get my point across and to show the characters reconnecting after a serious incident that could have torn their marriage apart.

          I will add the disclaimer, the story is primarily for married women, because it addresses the issue of lust, which more and more Christian women are wrestling with nowadays. But, I would never write anything I would feel uncomfortable allowing my boys to read when they (God willing) reach their teenage years.

          • Jessica Thomas July 7, 2011, 3:01 PM

            Also, thanks Mike, for the forum. I always forget to say that…

          • Tony July 9, 2011, 2:54 AM

            I don’t know that it’s necessary to show anything for that reconnecting. Honestly, sex scenes seem counterproductive to me. It’s like watching/reading about two old friends getting it on. . .and who wants to see that? If I care about these people — real or fake — chances are I have the respect to NOT want to witness such a private and intimate moment. . .maybe I’m just strange like that. . .

            Anyway, I think the best bet is to show right up to the bedroom door. There’s little reason to go any further, and this way the scene remains sweet rather than carnal (and married or not, in love or not, from the outside looking in, sex seems carnal — a married couple having sex looks exactly the same as an unmarried one). And that leaves room for more of an emotional (rather than physical, if you catch my drift) reaction from the reader.

            I’m not just talking Christian books, I mean ALL stories (books, movies, games) could learn from this method. It works. And not many complain about it. *They used this method in Dragon Age II and Mass Effect II (video games) and I thought it worked great — and Bioware (the game creators) is well known and well respected in the industry for being brilliant storytellers.

            Anyway, just something to consider. I think the idea that sex scenes are sometimes unnavoidable is bull. A myth I’m not falling for. Don’t believe it. 😉

            *[I’m a young’un, and like King found inspiration in movies, I find loads of ideas and techniques in video games — they’re art, I don’t care what people say, and often have better stories & characters than most books ]

            • Mike Duran July 9, 2011, 6:00 AM

              Tony, I appreciate where you’re coming from and, for the most part, agree. But when you say, “the best bet is to show right up to the bedroom door,” I still think that misses the point. It’s ANY implication and language of sex that seems to ruffle the average Christian reader’s feathers. So even outside the bedroom, sayings like the follow would still be viewed as off-limits:

              “He kissed her with an open mouth.”
              “He unbuttoned her pants and traced the curve of her thigh.”
              “She reached under his shirt and brushed his nipple.”
              “Her bra went flying past him and she smiled playfully.”

              The above statements are more suggestive than explicit. However, I’d venture to say, even if these actions occurred between a married couple, they would be unacceptable for most Christian fiction. Which leads me to ask if our problem is not with “married sex,” but with ALL sex.

              Thanks for commenting, Tony!

              • Vic DiGital July 9, 2011, 7:19 AM

                Maybe a more accurate question is “Is it wrong to fantasize about sex?” because that’s ultimately where the ‘problem’ occurs. A couple of times in this discussion it’s been suggested that reading steamy passages between fictional married couples is okay because it will/should only lead to the (married) reader to think about their spouse in that way and spice up their marriage.

                But that is a ridiculous thing to expect or use as justification. Unless the story is ABOUT your spouse, your imagination is going to wander, to fill in the details on whoever it is you were envisioning as the character looking like prior to that scene. We all “cast” books when we read them. Sometimes it’s with actors, sometimes people we know.

                I know it’s getting nitpicky, but 1 Corinthians 6:18 clearly states we are to “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” Matthew 5:28 says “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

                Whether or not a writer thinks these verses are too strict, or don’t apply today or don’t mean what it clearly says, a huge (I’d even venture to say ‘overwhelming’) number of sincere, believing Christians hold the commonly understood meaning of the verses to be accurate. Of course it’s IMPOSSIBLE for any of us to hold to these principles without fail. That’s why Jesus was necessary in the first place. But it falls upon all of us to at least ATTEMPT to do whatever we can to live up to the standards Jesus set for us. That means we need to NOT read (or watch, or download) things that make us dwell upon sex. FLEE. It’s a pretty specific and dramatic word.

                If someone is writing something that claims to be Christian, (and that means “Christ-like”), then I don’t know how one can actively lead a reader down a path of fantasizing about sex and say that it’s what Jesus would want. The examples listed above, while incredibly tame by erotica standards, still cross that line. In no instances can I believe that if Jesus were sitting with you co-writing your novel, would He say “Yes! That’s exactly what I want representing my ideals. That’s pretty hot, in a not-as-bad-as-erotica kind of way.”

                As has been proven since the dawn of time, men and women both can look at something that’s 100% non-sexual, such as a banana or a pair of mountains, and THAT can cause our imaginations to run rampant. Any of us who still remember our teenage years will recall that even things like sunlight, or a breeze, or waking up led to thoughts of sex. We don’t need ANY help in going there.

                On the flip side, I totally get that writers gotta write. We want our stories to be filled with as much detail and emotion and truth and visceral sensation as possible. But if you absolutely HAVE to go into explicit, even if it’s laughably tame, detail about the sexual act, then I really don’t believe you’re writing something that accurately represents what Christ would want you to be saying is of Him. Getting someone to actively think about and visualize and fantasize about sex is 100% counter-intuitive to the two scriptures I quoted above. I see no way in reconciling it.

                If I’m writing something that absolutely has to have sex in it, then I’ll just have to label it as something other than “Christian”. “Using a Christian backdrop”, perhaps. “Faith-based” maybe. Or better yet, we need a new genre title that more clearly indicates to a potential reader what is in store for them. “Faith-based Romance” has an entirely different connotation to me than “Christian Romance.”

                Instead of tarting up Christ to match modern sensibilities, let’s let things concerning Him remain pure.

                As always, amazing discussion. I know I’m clearly taking one side of this argument, but this very conundrum is something I’m struggling with as a writer. What’s the line? What is MY responsibility as a writer when I present my work as “Christian”?

                • R. L. Copple July 9, 2011, 10:20 AM

                  I agree that one must think of one’s audience in writing sex scenes. But focusing on “Christian Fiction” (which I really don’t see that much difference with “Faith-based” unless you are opening it up to any religious faith, which then can get quite weird), I would disagree that a writer cannot even allude to a married couple having sex. That’s not immorality. I don’t really want to go into their bedroom and watch, mind you, but making it clear where it is going isn’t immorality or something to flee from.

                  Indeed, I think the problem is in seeing sex of any kind as immoral. That’s why when St. John Chrysostom in a homily on Ephesians where Paul talks about sex (bad boy for bringing it up and dwelling on it), he talks about the union of a couple in sex as the mingling of the two in great pleasure. And when apparently some in his congregation respond with embarrassment at his words, he points out to them that hearing about sex in the context God intended is embarrassing to them because they have corrupted the act with drunkenness at weddings, and immorality.

                  No, I think Christ would like us to show in a non-titillating manner what correct and healthy sex should be like, because that as St. Paul points out, it images our union with Christ. Therefore it becomes critical that we show this in the right context in Christian work if we are to understand the right context of our union with Christ, and what that means. Not that this is the whole thing, mind you, but an important part, which is why Paul tells married couples not to deny each other sex except by common consent to focus on prayer.

                  And if we do allude to or show sexual immorality, that we show the destruction it will bring that should also show why we flee such things.

                  I don’t agree with the poster who said we need to show it all in titillating detail because that’s what writers do. I think a Christian story shouldn’t venture into porn. That is, providing titillation for the sake of titillation but has nothing to do with the plot. And rarely is it necessary for the plot to go there (I’ve only needed to one time). It is enough when needed, to indicate it is going to happen then cut away. (I’ve done that once as well, in the same book no less.)

                  But seriously, if we don’t put it in the proper context as Christian writers, that means we’re leaving it in the hands of the rest of the writers. And we know what they show and teach. Is that the only examples we want our kids to get?

                  And they will get the other examples. In the 70s, no less, I picked up a book in my school library from Heinlein called “Fear No Evil.” Sex all over the place. Couldn’t believe they had that in the school library. Probably bought it because of the name and the genre and didn’t realize it was so sex-filled. And it wasn’t married sex, but immoral stuff.

                  As a Christian teen at the time, I didn’t finish it. Not just because of that. It was boring and going no where. But I didn’t feel comfortable reading that stuff. I guess I fled at the time from it.

                  But seriously, if writing about mountains is going to get someone into immorality, then there is no reason why I shouldn’t admit that married couples do have sex on occasion and that it is a good thing. Otherwise, I should stop writing if my description of a mountain might cause someone to sin.

                  • Sherry Thompson July 9, 2011, 11:57 AM

                    Rick, I had a similar experience with a book from my high school. I want to say that the title was, “The Others”. It was largely about summer vacationers thronging a tiny beach resort & the social intermingling of the local teens with the visitors. Lotsa culture shock between kids who always lived there and other teens who came from all over the place.

                    There was shock of another form for me. I knew nothing on the subject of sex. Part of the way through the story, there was a scene where two kids were sitting on a porch and the young man was doing a bit of, uh, groping. Definitely over the line! But fairly tame by today’s awful (lack of) standards for young adult books.

                    At that point in my reading, my mom called us to dinner. I felt so embarrassed, I felt like everyone at the table could see what I had been reading.

                  • Vic DiGital July 9, 2011, 6:56 PM

                    Again, it’s not about the absolute discussion of sex or alluding to it, it’s the going into detail that I question if it needs to be in a book labeled “Christian”. If a reader thinks about sex when he reads about mountains, that’s on him, not the author. But if the author writes about a character unhooking a bra, or sensually squeezing (body part of choice) as his/her genitals begin to respond, then that’s on the author. That leaves no room for any sort of excuse that they were attempting to show what intimacy between a man and woman in a committed relationship. As was stated earlier, married sex looks exactly like unmarried sex. The purpose of including sexual details is to get a rise (no pun intended, well, maybe a little) out of the reader.

                    Two of the members of my writing group had books published by a small erotic romance publisher. Part of their submission process is to assign how many “flames” they think their story warrants. The details in these sorts of stories is to evoke and inflame that part of the reader’s brain and body, be it erotica or Christian romance. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

                    Frank and clinical discussion of sex is always okay assuming it’s in the right context. Titillation (however tame) is not at all what Paul was talking about. When an adult mentions the word “sex”, all other adults know what they are talking about. At no point is there any need to go into a detailed description of it using visceral adjectives, verbs and adverbs. If you’ve had sex, you know the routine. If you haven’t (hopefully because you’re saving yourself for marriage), then there’s also no need to get yourself worked up about something you shouldn’t be doing or even fantasizing about. Talking about it in a clinical, mature way? Sure. Sensual details? Not NEEDED for either the married adult or the unmarried child/adult. There are tons of ways a writer can allude to what is about to happen or just happened without having to show the act itself.

                • Jessica Thomas July 9, 2011, 7:45 PM

                  “Getting someone to actively think about and visualize and fantasize about sex is 100% counter-intuitive to the two scriptures I quoted above.”

                  Are you allowed to fantasize about your spouse?

                  First of all, Mike’s examples were pretty tame, and I also want to note that I prefer the suggestive route over the explicit. Sex scenes that describe body parts make me laugh, seriously. It’s totally unnecessary and it comes across dumb.

                  But I’m definitely going into the bedroom with my two characters, and I will explain and describe her emotions leading up to…but my rule so far has been to cut before things get too steamy. One of the reasons is important in my particular story is that my main female character does fall into the sin of lust over an old boyfriend, and ends up getting herself in a potentially dangerous situation. (This type of thing is happening all over, it’s not just the men, it’s the women too and it’s in our churches.) To make the story believable, I had to portray some of her feelings toward this ex-boyfriend. Now, if I flash over to her husband, and do not show how, after they reconcile, their intimate experience together is so much better than the fleeting thoughts she’d had about her old boyfriend, well then I would certainly be sending the wrong message to my readers and it would be an epic fail.

                  These are fictional characters, by the way. Not real people. Besides that, I don’t think my husband is going to mind if I read a well crafted intimate scene between a married couple, start thinking certain thoughts and then call for my him, I don’t think he’s going to mind that. Not at all. And please don’t compare it to a man looking at porn. I think God wants us to celebrate and enjoy sex, not use it to objectify the opposite sex. Porn is all about objectifying and using the other person for personal gratification, and if we can’t see the difference between the two, then God help us.

                  • Vic DiGital July 9, 2011, 8:23 PM

                    “Are you allowed to fantasize about your spouse?”

                    Absolutely. Being technical and Biblical about it, the ONLY person we should be envisioning in our minds is our spouse, if we have one. Otherwise, fantasizing of ANY kind, be it printed or filmed, is indeed objectifying that person. And let’s take the word “porn” out of the discussion and instead pose this question: Is it okay for a Christian film to show nudity, specifically in a love scene, so long as it’s tasteful and doesn’t show any of the stuff you’d associate with hardcore or softcore porn? These are fictional characters. They aren’t actually having sex. Maybe the fact that it’s actual people who we are seeing nude that causes a problem, and we have a specific person we are potentially objectifying. So let’s say it’s an animated Christian film with animated nudity and animated tasteful love scenes. Is that then okay? I know this sounds snarky, but I’m posing serious questions here.

                    My entry into this discussion is I’m a filmmaker, and I want to make a Christian film, and I’m having major questions/qualms about what should be in it. How “edgy” to make it. What’s the point when I say “This isn’t for the Christian market, so therefore I can go these extra steps into edginess” or “I definitely think this is a story Christians will identify with, and I need to instead tailor it for them” (or else risk it never being seen by either camp). The last thing I want to do is cross a line, and then justify it later by claiming I was just being truthful or whatever other excuse I want to use. And believe me, I’d like nothing more than to completely justify any line-crossing I come up with. I keep hoping for some sort of “a-ha!” point to be made, but it hasn’t happened yet. If anything, I’m more convicted than ever that I’m venturing into dangerous ground by wanting to include inappropriate content in something that is nominally supposed to glorify Christ. My options to me seem to be: 1. Not do it. 2. Take out all inappropriate content and hope it still works. 3. Do it the way I want, that feels artistically true, but refrain from marketing it as “Christian” or hoping that a Christian distributor picks it up.

                    It’s one thing (and another discussion entirely) if I should even be creating something that has any sort of “FLEE from this” content in it. It’s exponentially more questionable if I’m putting FLEE content in a film that’s supposed to associated with or showing the love of Christ.

            • Sherry Thompson July 9, 2011, 12:06 PM

              Tony wrote, “I think the best bet is to show right up to the bedroom door. ”

              With all apologies to you, Tony, that sentence reminded me of a scene from a movie. In the olden days of film, if a couple (married or unmarried) were about to have relations, it was common for the camera to cut away from them and focus on the fireplace. (There always seemed to be a fire & a fireplace conveniently handy for those beak-away scenes.)

              A comedy film–I think it was “Top Secret”–turned this on its ear. As usual, the camera cut away from the couple and focused on the fireplace.

              However, the couple shifted a bit and ended up in the frame. So, the camera shifted too, and focused on a -second- fireplace. Again the couple started drifting into the frame. This went on for like 4-5 shifts and 4-5 new fireplaces. I thought it was hysterical.

        • Tony July 9, 2011, 2:22 AM

          I’ve wanted to weigh in on this, but kept to myself. For the most part, seems you’ve read my mind.

          There’s more to say, I think. There is always more to say. But I think this covers it well enough. Great response.

  • Katherine Coble July 7, 2011, 9:10 AM

    Forgive me, in advance, for not yet having read the comments of others and perhaps accidentally echoing what someone else has already said. But I just had to come a wee uncorked. Because I read the comment about how the one woman reads Christian fiction for its “wholesome values”.

    But then finds loving, partner-committed sex within the context of Covenant Marriage to be NOT…

    wholesome?

    What do you think WHOLESOME means? It means, actually, bringing value to the whole person. Promoting good moral values.

    What is a better moral value than the treasuring of sex in its ordained circumstance?

    Why have we let Satan take sex–> God’s gift to us upon entering into the Covenant of marriage–and turn it into the disgusting equivalent of dirty underwear. “Ooooh Sex. Don’t make me look at that. ::wretching noise::”

    Frankly, with so many of our girls growing up with body issues because of the Satanic portrayal of sex as a bodily function which is only deserved by the thinnest, prettiest and wealthiest among us, the Christian market better take back sex right quick.

    Picture this world: One where mock communions are held in bars and nightclubs across the country, with Scotch substituting for wine and Moon Pies for the Host. People consume the mock communion with abandon, drinking and vomiting, smearing the marshmallow insides of the cookie over their stomachs and licking off the residue. Soon communion is associated with sybaritic rites, slime and degradation. Nobody wants to take communion in church anymore because it reminds them of all the footage they’ve seen on CSI:Des Moines of what the Night Club Communions are like.

    Would we as a church let that happen? Let Satan steal a sacrament?

    Oops. We already did.

    Sorry, Sex. It was nice knowing you.

    • xdpaul July 7, 2011, 11:50 AM

      I’m pretty sure the seventh seal includes CSI: Des Moines and moon pies, so you win this theological debate, hands down.

      Funny thing is, if Des Moines ever had a CSI, most of the crimes would, indeed, be snack food-related.

      To your truer point: amen. When it comes to popular tastes, I’ve got a line and you’ve got a line and the only real line that gets crossed is when I’m telling you your drawing yours wrong. This has nearly nothing, possibly nothing at all, to do with sin .

      This is in most part a completely different issue, aside and separate from sin. As much as the worriers may decry “veering” and “playing with fire,” no one has successfully argued that anything written in fiction is a sin.

      The only examples I can think of are fictions that lie: A Million Little Pieces and Three Cups of Tea come to mind. But those are lies precisely because they purported to be something they weren’t: non-fiction. Those betrayals are obvious literary sins against God and others.

      I honestly can’t think of an instance of written fiction that I can now point to as a sin, George R.R. Martin included. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t books whose entire theme is sinful, whose reason for existing is to turn away from holiness, but we’re talking about the words, characters and scenery. So unless you believe that Stanley Kowalski’s undershirt, Duncan’s bloody daggers or any other prop in play is “sinful,” what is the concern?

      Is it a sin that I’ve “seen” Bathsheba, Alec D’Urberville, Invisible Man, Lady Godiva, Winston Smith, Dulcinea, The Wife of Bath, Tinidril, Leta, Dido, the Beloved, Laura Laughlin’s mother, and zillions of other characters in flagrante delicto?

  • Nicole July 7, 2011, 9:47 AM

    Excellent point, Katherine. And vivid imagery!

  • Cathy Richmond July 7, 2011, 11:28 AM

    What a great discussion!
    This book was never intended to push any envelopes. I had read a mail-order bride story by another Christian author and the issue of physical intimacy was totally ignored. Yet it seems like a huge barrier in the era of “close your eyes and think of England” sex ed. Susannah is a shy mail-order bride who has no dating experience. The incident forcing her to leave home was an assault. Saying she’s inhibited is a gross understatement. Spring for Susannah is about this woman’s growth and change – including her relationship with her husband. And that relationship includes becoming one (Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5).
    Back in the 1990s, Redbook magazine published a study showing Evangelical Christian women have the best sex lives. Committed, monogamous relationships create trust, which leads to great sex.
    As Jessica said, if any “feelings” are generated, I hope wives think of their husbands. We get so busy balancing checkbooks, running carpools, & wiping noses, sometimes we need a remind that sex is a gift of God!

    • Mike Duran July 7, 2011, 11:35 AM

      Thanks for joining the conversation, Cathy. I was wondering, what’s your response to those who feel the descriptions of sex in your novel are too frank or somehow inappropriate for the Christian market?

  • Nicole July 7, 2011, 11:34 AM

    Right on, Cathy. And write on!

  • R. L. Copple July 7, 2011, 11:39 AM

    I most certainly think we should portray healthy and vibrant sex lives, where appropriate, in Christian fiction, between married couples. I also agree it shouldn’t devolve into titillation.

    Problem is, what one person thinks is titillating, is another person’s “Oh, that’s so tame as to hardly blink an eye at.” What sets one person’s mouth watering hardly registers on another’s radar. Titillation is in the eyes of the beholder.

    That said, when one gets into describing body parts and where they are going and the feelings, I think that gets more into titillation on most people’s radar. I think most of us know when we’ve crossed that line for most people. The question seems to more be about the gray areas, as it seems this book hits. Why is it people either think it is absolutely nothing or all?

    The third book in my series, yet to be published, I had to deal with this, both a married couple, but especially for the protagonist who is committing sin at one point. I had to show enough for her motivation to do what she was doing to be valid, and it was necessary to make the plot work. Trying to find that balance isn’t easy. I know not everyone will be happy with where I’ve landed, even though we’ve trimmed back the description some. But if the reader doesn’t feel her passion, her decision won’t ring true. It is in first person, too. So no escaping it if I want this to work, and it is a critical scene that the plot hinges on.

    I might get such reviews as well, if the book ever gets on people’s radars to register a response.

    • xdpaul July 8, 2011, 2:38 PM

      Isn’t it one of the main jobs of fiction, in fact, to titillate?

      1. To stimulate by touching lightly; tickle.
      2. To excite (another) pleasurably, superficially or erotically.

      The work of fiction is a work of the senses. If you wish to purely illuminate a subject or experience, then fiction is a terrible vehicle. Where fiction excels is its ability to:

      A) Transport.
      B) Transcend.
      C) Transfer.

      The best tool I know as a writer is titillation. If I’m not sensually expressing, say, a fist fight, a discovery, or a truth, then what I’m left with is a far worse sin than sex in print: wooden prose.

      I’d argue that among the many tasks of a working fiction writer, one of the prime ones is to titillate, and titillate boldly – the Christian moreso than the poor heathen or the blind pagan – for he has the spirit of the living God within him, by the visceral blood of Christ Jesus.

      In short, if a Christian’s fiction isn’t reaching out and touching someone, even if a hundred thousand rise up in righteous indignation against the perception of unintended excitement, then that Christian isn’t doing his job.

      I favor the notion that it is just as likely that there are Amish romance writers who have sinned through omission when the story demanded that the protagonists rut like happy pigs upon the page. Failure to engage is a worse sin than those who brave the risk of titillation.

  • Bruce Hennigan July 7, 2011, 12:12 PM

    I’m reading Havah by Tosca Lee and just the first part of the first chapter is filled with suggestions of intimacy that just flirt with the whole titillation thing. I found the passages very moving from a romantic point of view, but I kept visualizing them running around naked, swimming in the river, lying in the grass, etc. How can you avoid picturing them in their nudity without allowing it to “cross the line”. I think the point is the inevitability of describing Adam and Eve in the natural state is essential to the truth of the story. I could not help but get drawn into the scenes by Tosca Lee’s brilliant prose. I was lost in Eden with Adam and Eve. And, it was not because of their nudity. It was because of their growing love for each other.

    For me, the challenge was not to allow my own imaginations to go too far. And that is beyond the control of the author. We can set the stage, describe the deed in veiled language, but the imagination can take the reader far beyond the intent of our words if the reader so desires. Is that our fault? Is that our responsibility? Where do you draw the line?

    I say it is impossible to read the mind of the reader (there’s a pun in there somewhere) and know when you’ve gone too far in stimulating their imagination. In the end, I am the one who has to live with my words. It is my creation and I am answerable ultimately to God. My publisher may not like that and may place on me tighter constraints. I have a contract so I have to obey. In the end, there is always some compromise on our artistic vision whether it is in respect for the reader, respect for God, or respect for the contract we don’t want to have revoked! What do guys think?

    • xdpaul July 8, 2011, 2:48 PM

      If a man is slave to Christ, so is his imagination, which is a gift from God and should not be beaten into the corner on the off chance that one might have an impure thought.

      Reining the imagination in the name of piety is akin to drowning a cat to make sure that it won’t be eaten by bears. You prevent the potential problem by committing a certain one.

      A man, if he intends to write fiction, has to put on his big boy pants and go places the average person never does, just so he can bring back what he’s found. Readers feel gypped when their edited package of imagination has also been pre-censored.

      The line here isn’t between rutting-rife stories and rut-free stories, but between editing and censorship. The human heart gravitates toward censorship far more often than it cares to admit.

      After all, without the devil’s censorship, Eve would not have so easily been deceived, nor would Adam so tragically fallen.

  • John Robinson July 7, 2011, 12:59 PM

    Allow me to say that reading this entire thread, stem to stern, has given me a case of the vapors.

    But after a deep draught of smelling salts and putting my head between my knees for ten minutes (harder to achieve than you’d think, given my age, and a bit weird besides), I’m fine now. Really.

    So Tab A goes into Slot B, eh … ?

    • Mike Duran July 7, 2011, 5:31 PM

      My day is made knowing we’ve given someone “a case of the vapors.” Thanks for the laugh, John.

  • Tracy Krauss July 7, 2011, 4:00 PM

    I haven’t read Catharine’s book, so I can’t really comment intelligently on how ‘tame’ or ‘steamy’ it might actually be. One commenter mentioned Tosca Lee’s HAVAH, which I have read, and quite enjoyed it. Yes there are sexual scenes in it, but in my mind they weren’t too graphic – at least not enough to launch them into the ‘erotica’ category.

    I think this discussion is another one of those along the lines of your earlier ‘Why Christian can’t agree about Christian fiction.’ Everyone has a different ‘metre’ of what is acceptable. I just wish those on the extreme right (prudish?) end wouldn’t try to enforce their standards on everyone else.

    It was responsible, however, for some of the reviewers to include a cautionary note for those that might not like it. For my part, I am sick of Christian fiction that contains ‘skipping through the metaphorical park’. I’m not into graphic details for their own sake (nothing gratuitous, please!) but sometimes you have to be real to tell the story.
    http://www.tracykraussexpressionexpress.com

  • Marion July 7, 2011, 4:07 PM

    Wow! Now I actually want to be read this book even though it is not the genre I would normally read.

    Song of Solomon and my favorite book in the Bible, Ecclesiastes (the most misunderstood book as well) talks about sex and God’s gift given to humanity.

    I have to write that some Christians really have to grow up. God touches every area of lives and that includes sex and sexuality.

    I will paste this comment from my blog:

    http://kammbia1.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/wisdom-of-marion-vol-1-32-ecclesiates-91-18/

    Solomon is telling us that it is God’s will in Christ that we enjoy the basic provisions of life that he has given us. He is the one who provides them for us. He accepts–indeed, commands–our participation in the enjoyment of life, food, marriage, and work. So go ahead and do as God would want! Eat, drink, love, and work. God has accepted these activities. The mark of a biblical wise man or woman is that despite the many painful issues in life—namely, death–the wise are able to enjoy life as a gift of God. They know when pleasure and feasting and love are appropriate.

    There is a great deal of unholy prudery in the church. I’m going to say it plainly. Christian spouses are supposed to enjoy life by enjoying sex with each other and all the other blessings of marriage. Solomon is not giving us some form of hedonistic nihilism here. He is not saying eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. He is saying we should receive the good things in life as gifts from God because that is what they are. {pp.178-179}

    He nails it with those paragraphs. This is from Pastor Meyers’ book “A Table in the Mist” a study on the book of Ecclesiastes. The context is from Ecclesiastes 9, where Solomon tells the reader we must enjoy life because it can go away like a vapor.

    Thanks Mike for bringing this topic up.

    Marion

  • Cathy Richmond July 7, 2011, 7:36 PM

    Mike, When reviewers tell me I’ve crossed the line, I say I’m sorry the story didn’t work for them. My next one is less sensual. I hope they’ll give me another chance.
    I haven’t been surprised by the controversy over this. What surprised me was the negative reaction to the doctor’s discussion of 1870s birth control methods. After working in a hospital all these years, medical talk no longer bothers me. But apparently it does bother some people.
    I agree with Tracy & Bruce – Tosca Lee does an excellent job in Havah!

    • Tracy Krauss July 7, 2011, 7:52 PM

      I guess your response is the only real way to deal with negative criticism, Cathy. Not everyone is going to enjoy the same things. I am definitely intrigued enough that I want to read your book, though!
      http://www.tracykraussexpressionexpress.com

    • Carradee July 8, 2011, 6:14 AM

      Your comment on the medical methods actually made me chuckle. I used to be sorta squeamish about that sorta thing. Then:
      1. I became a biology major.
      2. A friend who wanted to be a midwife moved in with me.

      Between those two things, I soon realized how foundless my squeamishness was. Now, I didn’t finish the major, but I still have to censor myself around particular folks at church who start turning green as soon as you mention anything under the skin. (Their kids, though, are curious about blood and biology, so I have to watch out for their parents while I fill them in—not because their parents would disapprove, mind you, but because it would make their parents ill.)

      I sometimes find myself belatedly realizing that I passed the TMI bar for the other person a good minute ago. ^_^

      • Sherry Thompson July 8, 2011, 9:33 AM

        Your chuckling must be contagious. Your account reminds me of my paternal grandfather who was a professor of anatomy. He never intentionally said anything–certainly not about marital relations–but anatomical/biological stuff would slip out especially if he were chatting with my dad.

  • Bob Avey July 9, 2011, 9:35 AM

    Interesting post, Mike. I’ve read other articles, which open to debate the peramaters of Christian fiction. With my third novel, I am attempting to incorporate both my faith and my propensity for the supernatural. I had a friend who is familiar with Christian fiction read the manuscript as it stands, and she told me it would be rejected by the Christian market. I’m not sure what to do about it. My goal is to reach readers and get them to consider Christianity. If I write just for only people who already are Christians, am I doing that or am I merely entertaining?

  • Sherry Thompson July 9, 2011, 11:43 AM

    Bob, you remind me of myself! I am an adult convert to Christianity. When I was inspired to write “Seabird” and “Earthbow” not long after accepting Christ, I specifically geared my books for the non-Christian I used to be. (I had been very wary of anything blatantly Christian, yet wanting something in my life and not knowing what it was.)
    After years of trying to get the books published by “mainstream” publishers–the better to reach my intended audience–I decided in 2006 to give the CBA publishers a shot. I never actually submitted to many of them–their guidelines indicated they would not accept my manuscript as it was written.
    As I’ve said elsewhere, just the first page of “Seabird” would have gotten me a rejection. My main character wakes up on the beach & realizes that she’s badly sunburned. She says, “Darn!” Some CBA publishers would’nt accept that word, according to their guidelines, because everyone knew for what word that was a substitute. I knew already that I would not compromise & replace my “darn” with “golly” or “gee” (the last of which has its own not so esoteric source).
    My tame book was either not accepted or would not be accepted by CBA publishers. However, an email writing friend and Methodist minister, decided to open his own indie publishing company. He wanted “Seabird”. He was a minister but wasn’t in the least ruffled by “that word”. At the same time, Dave went through a phase where he considered having an accompanying “study guide” for Christian young adult groups. He kept seeing scriptural principles I was unaware I had included–or maybe they got there through another “source. 😉 ) (The guide was never written.)
    When “Seabird” was published in 2008, I fully expected it to attract non-Christian readers, because I had been so careful not to be blatant about the Christian underpinnings. Nonbelievers were always my target audience, after all. But, guess what? Virtually everyone who has read “Seabird” or “Earthbow” —all five of them 😉 —are Christians.

    You wrote, “My goal is to reach readers and get them to consider Christianity. If I write just for only people who already are Christians, am I doing that or am I merely entertaining?”
    Well, sometimes, you don’t get to choose. God does.

    • Bob Avey July 10, 2011, 7:57 PM

      Thanks for the reply to my post, Sherry. I, too, am Methodist. I have two secular books out — both published by a small — very small — secular publisher. However, I do want to incorporate my faith into my fiction.

  • Erica July 18, 2011, 9:33 AM

    Wow! Sex within marriage? And folks have a problem with this? Oh excuse me, Christian people have a problem with this? Sex was designed for man and wife…I thought. Oh well, now I want to read Spring for Susan. I love books which push the envelope.

    Fiction should keep it real, so to speak.

  • DD December 22, 2011, 3:04 PM

    After rereading Richard Terrell’s essay, “Christian Fiction: Piety is Not Enough,” I was reminded of this posting. In his essay he writes of “The Danger of Pious Evasion” concerning sex:

    “Prudish evasiveness toward the body and the sexxuality of human beings has long been a staple in Christian literature…In 1981, James Wesley Ingles warned that explicitly Christian novelists seemed ‘almost embarassed in dealling with sex as is the non-Christian novelist in dealing with prayer…We cannot comabt the pagan view of sex in our time by ignoring its significance in human experience.’

    “A reading of some leading evangelical fiction of the later ’90s would suggest that not much has changed. In the immensely popular Left Behind series, when the character Buck meets the young heroine, Chloe, he is said to be powerfully impressed with her firm handshake!…In a later episode, after they are married, we find Buck returning from a harrowing escape…The narrative describing their reunion has all the emotional concern over a late return from a grocery store. Eventually we find the young, healthy married couple in bed ‘unable to sleep.’ [with Buck deciding] to go to the church to check the underground shelter…

    “This kind of narrative seems to be guided by avoidance, indeed a gnostic, heretical fear of physical reality and normal human desire.”

    He goes on to discuss more from these books and others and Christian films. The point is that here is a case of what illustrates what I call the “Principle of Extremes.” Secular novels take sexuality to one extreme, so out of response or reaction to that, Christian writers often go to the other extreme.

Leave a Reply