How should sin be portrayed in Christian stories and novels?
Author L.B. Graham has posted an essay arguing that the depiction of sin in Christian fiction must be more than moralism. The full essay is worth reading, but here's a short excerpt:
I’m constantly surprised at how often fictional stories are judged to be Christian or not, based more or less on how well the characters behave themselves. Of course it is true that morality matters - God has taken great care to expound in some detail the moral laws which flow from and are an extension of His own character. It is also true, though, that the Bible itself is full of flawed men and women whom God used almost despite of rather than because of their moral triumphs. However, when Christian writers incorporate flawed heroes into their stories, men and women with moral failings of any significance, they are often left open to charges of having given dubious testimony to their Lord.
He goes on to suggest that Christians ought to resist the initial impulse to praise or condemn a story's moral quality based on the morality of its protagonists.
It's a good essay (and has applications to Christian interpretation of other artistic media as well, particularly film). I think most Christians would agree that it's possible (and even desirable, for the sake of believability) to portray flawed characters or sinful acts in fiction without actually condoning those behaviors. But looking at the variety of Christian film criticism available on the web, it's clear that we all seem to "draw the line" at different points when it comes to the acceptable portrayal of sin in our stories.
How do you approach this issue? A few questions to get you thinking:
- Does a Christian writer have a moral obligation to condemn sin portrayed in his or her story? ("Condemn" here might mean explicitly rebuking it in the story, or depicting the sin's consequences in a way that casts it in a negative light.) Would you be bothered if sin in a Christian's story (say, sexual sin committed by the protagonist) is not addressed?
- Does a Christian writer have an obligation to describe—or not describe—sin differently than a non-Christian might? Should a Christian writer shy away from graphically describing certain sins—sexual sin, violence, etc.? What about less "tangible" sins, like greed or envy?
- What's the best portrayal of sin you've encountered in a novel (Christian or otherwise)? What makes that portrayal so effective?
(Hat tip: Looking Closer.)
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (11)
It's very discouraging for young Christian artists to know that, no matter how Orthodox and effortful your work is, many Christians would immediately distrust you and attack your work if it seems to deviate from their sense of propriety. A huge bloc of Christians out there don't trust anybody or anything beyond a shortlist of theologically pre-approved preachers and writers (and, for all intents and purposes, chain-letter authors), and meet every new attempt at faith-expression, in and out of their home church, with suspicion. That's unfortunate.
Anyone interested in this debate should look at his books and/or interviews that he does. The subject comes up often in relation to his writing.
Much of the Christian church has lost all idea of shame and outrage and holy living in our culture. Christians trade holy living in exchange for being relevant in the culture. Jesus may have gone to a house of ill repute, but he would not have enjoyed porn or sexual escapades for the sake of evangelism. We have lost sight of sin. We justify being enterained by sin for the sake of . . . what?
A movie is rated "R" by the world because even the world knows that viewers will be entertained by sex, violence and/or vulgarity. It we entertain ourselves that way then we have no right calling ourselves, "holy before the Lord."
That being said, how do you think Christians should write about sin? Should we be explicit in describing and discussing sin, or is that illicit? Should we be euphemistic and censoring? Does talking about corruption invite people to corruption? Or does it help us as Christians to ensure that we are ignorant (inasmuch as people who daily acknowledge their hopelessly fallen state who've thrown themselves at God and His promise of redemption could pretend to be...) of sex, violence, and vulgarity? Are those the only moral issues that matter?
Assuming you don't think storytelling only runs the continuum from pointless divergence to out-and-out-evil, how do you think Christians should tell stories?
Here's my main point. I very much enjoy the BBC productions of Charles Dickens. Within these masterful pieces of literature is murder, cruelty, sex, prostituion and all the evil and sin that can happen in a society. I am greatly moved by the portrayed evil. But within these productions I see no nudity, no acutal sex act; the violence is greatly muted; the language is very tame. I can be aware of the evil and moved by those who do evil without seeing all the details. Certainly, thank goodness, art is not neutral but pleads for a society to wake up and recognize the evil therein.
No, talking about corruption does not lead to corrupton; I believe glamorizing it does. And no, we don't have to be ignorant about evil and by all means it should be part of art. It's not the what, it's how the what is portrayed. Sex, violence and vulgarity are not the only issues that matter. It grieves me when war is glamorized as well as the sins of greed, enviromental pollution and others.
And too, have we come to a place where our own imaginations must be put on hold and instead rely on all details produced by the artist? Reading many of the great classics of literature, even the Bible, it didn't have to paint every detail of a picture for us to see the picture.
What bothers me most, I believe, is that showing sex and graphic violence and using vulagarity can lead to sin. I am a person who struggled with bondage to pornagraphy in my early years; it started not with hard core stuff, but with what might be called art.
I believe some "art" can negatively affect our culture; it , in a sense, dumbs us down; the artist may be very creative and imaginative, but little is left to the imagination of the viewer, rather it seems to me, that emualtion results--sex, vulgarity, language, violence--I can't believe there's not a relationship between some art and how people respond to art. We are a species that learns from what we see and hear.
Censorship. Is there nothing you wouldn't censor? We censor all the time for children, yet somehow we think as adults we can take anything--it will not surprise me if graphic pedaphile sexual activity will one day be on the screen; or graphic torture of children will be at the movies. And it will not surprise me if Christian reviewers will say, "It's important we portray this in great detail so people know of the evil." What? I can't know and respond to evil unless I see it in all it's detail? Isn't that an insult to the viewer/reader/listener? At the same time we will be satisfying the purient interests of some of the viewers. Too bad.
I remember a story, I don't know if it's true: Michangelo began producing nude sculptures which was apparently radical for him. His mentor asked him why he was doing so and Michangelo said because that is how God made us. The mentor said, "Yes, but you are not God."
Lastly let me say that there may be a sophistication that I do no have. It may be that others aren't tempted with lust when they see nudity and sexual activity on the screen. Maybe this is why I'm not connecting with you and others. But I know this of myself, it I watch a sexual scene at a movie or read it in literature and it leads me to lust, then I may commit adultery in my heart. That is a serious matter. Yes, I could watch more of it until I became more desensitized, but I wonder if that's really the Christian approach.
Thanks again for you response.
Blessings,
Jim
You might be greatly moved by portrayals of sin in Dickens. I was moved by portrayals of sin in Cold Mountain. That doesn't make you more holy than me, does it?
Some facts:
Movies are not written all by one guy. Hundreds and even thousands of people write scripts.
Not all scripts that get made into movies are created equal: a few are pretty good (the new Batman),
and the rest are mostly bad (The Happening).
No artist intends to desensitize it's audience to violence or sex.
That's a side effect of bad storytelling and a reliance on spectacle all around.
So, of course, it follows that not all nude scenes are created equal. Some nude scenes can be relatively boring (Matrix II), because of a lack of craft. Some movies handle violence well (Rambo II), and others have extended torture scenes in them that are quite disturbing (Syriana). But you could hardly make a story like Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket without "gratuitous" violence.
You're right: we do learn from what we see and hear. In the case of those movies, though, it becomes obvious that a different 'message' was taught by all of them - that message, of course, was the product of us watching the protagonist wrestle his way through the plot. We empathize with the character, go along for the ride, and in the end, learn about how he got through (or didn't get through) the evils arrayed before him. Not all movies are the same. Not all stories are the same. A message could be "religion is hypocritical" (Saved), or "God is ironic" (Bruce Almighty) or "Jesus died horribly, like we often do" (Passion of the Christ). We "believe" this because we "see" our characters learn it on the screen.Lucky for us, nowadays, they come with warnings and everything. You'll never mistake Losing Isaiah for Saving Silverman for Finding Nemo again. Ideally, you'll never go on a ride you don't want to.
If you can't handle any nudity in movies, don't go to movies with nudity in them. I hate and fear and avoid horror movies for that reason. Not all horror movies are badly made (Pan's Labyrinth), but I'm overwhelmingly more likely to hate tomorrow if I see a horror movie today. Not all of us worry about the same sins, and I don't think it should be up to anyone but ourselves as to what we see, nor should we decide for anybody else. I'm probably on my own on this site, but not all nudity has the same effect on me. What you find prurient I might just find distracting (again, Matrix II). If your sense of right and wrong completely shuts down on sight of a naked body, I can't empathize, but I still don't think that means you should hog the remote. Not, of course, that I think anybody should have to watch Matrix II, but you get what I'm saying. Matrix II is a horrible movie.
That being said, the overwhelming responsibility for a Christian artist is to portray a sense of sin in their stories as they've encountered it in their lives - not as a mere "testimony", because giving a testimony isn't the same thing as telling a story, and art is for stories. The same rules apply to Christians as non-Christians in quality storytelling. Show me a movie that glamorizes corruption (Godfather? Hellboy? Oceans 11? Striptease?) and I'll show you a movie with a deep sense of right and wrong, moral theology, ironic justice and redemption, and the effect of choosing corruption, all dramatized through fallen characters - like you and me.
If Christians aren't writing movies as good as The Godfather because Christian culture may scold them, you get what we have: former Christians writing movies as good as The Godfather.
Because that's what artists do: write what they want, as best they can, and to hell with our creepy paternalistic moralities.
(I also think a big, secret part of Christians' objections to "secular" movies is that Christians get wrapped up in them as easily as our non-Christian counterparts - only we don't like to ever concede that we're not different than they are. After all, we're saved! We're the elect! That should make us LESS human, right? Nah. We'd like to be cool bad guys and strippers with hearts of gold, too - but most of us would let never anyone see us cop to it, even in the dark and anonymity of a movie theatre.)
And as for the story about Michaelangelo, it's probably not true. After all, the artist got his first chance to study anatomy (nude figures) from the mortuary at his Church's hospital - and, besides, the Italians never shared much in our Puritan proprieties to begin with.
One of the best novels that portray sin is Francine River's "Redeeming Love." It's a Christian novel that deals with prostitution. It's an adaptation of the Biblical story of Hosea and Gomer. It's gritty but not raunchy.
The Harry Potter books were condemned by Christians because we don't like sorcery but Harry was the boy whose life was saved by his mother giving hers and who later redeemed his friends and his world by giving his own life. You even have a bodily resurrection of sorts. If that doesn't remind millions of readers of what happened 2000 years ago then I don't know what, aside from the Bible, will!