Evangelicals Can't Write Because of Church?
by
Candice Watters
on Aug 29, 2007 at 1:09 PM
In keeping with my books theme (thanks to all you readers who commented and shared your favorite titles), is an article that says Evangelicals are nothing if not bad writers. "My fellow Evangelicals publish reams upon reams of prose. What we have not tended to write is anything recognized as having literary value by the literary world," writes Donald T. Williams, a Professor of English and Director of the School of Arts and Sciences at Toccoa Falls College in Georgia, in "Writers Cramped."
He asserts that the really good literary writers anymore aren't Evangelicals. "The modern Christians who are important writers are all from liturgical churches: Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox." Among the examples he gives are G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, T. S. Eliot, Graham Greene, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Walker Percy, and Flannery O'Connor. They are, he says, "all recognized as important literary figures even by people who do not share their Christian commitment. ... The closest thing Evangelicalism has to a name that could rank with these is probably Walter Wangerin, Jr., who is not really a mainstream Evangelical but a Lutheran -- again, from a liturgical tradition."
He continues:
Try to think of a conservative Baptist, a Free or Wesleyan Methodist or a Nazarene, a conservative Presbyterian, a Plymouth Brother, a member of the Evangelical Free Church or the Christian and Missionary Alliance, a Pentecostal, or a member of an independent Bible church who belongs in that company. (Some have mentioned writers who used to be in those churches—but the phrase "used to" in the observation is telling.)
The liturgical churches foster a lot of schlock and kitsch of their own, but they also nurture great writers and great writing. So far, we Evangelicals have not. In fact, we often positively discourage "literary" writing as being of questionable spiritual value.
The rest of the article is a tribute to the writings of Flannery O'Connor. Though I don't disagree that most of what lines the shelves of modern Christian bookstores lacks the weight of books by Lewis, Chesterton and the rest, I'm not convinced the blame lies with where modern writers go to church. I'm more inclined to think it's the fault of where they went to school.
How many of you who went to public schools and universities studied, or even read, the above mentioned authors? Isn't it hard to imagine a generation of literary geniuses coming from schools that have all but done away with the literary greats?
1. Jacob had the following to say on Aug 29 at 1:53 PM:
I read Lewis and Tolkien in high school and Chesterton and Eliot in college.
I do think that education is part of the problem (the other part I'll get to in a second). These people were all schooled in the Western Tradition. They knew their Plato, their Dante, their Augustine and their Cicero. That we do not have Christians who can write literature does not just have to do with the fact that they don't teach Lewis and Eliot. It has more to do that they don't teach what Lewis and Eliot themselves were taught and inspired by.
The second problem is that we're lazy. How many of us (myself included) are inclined to pick up a great work of literature? It's easier to just pick up pop-fiction like Left Behind and *cringe* "christian" romance novels. Because we don't have the patience to buy and invest in great works of literature, we buy and read lower-quality fluff. Since we only buy lower-quality fluff, that's all that publishing companies will sell. It goes back to the consumer. There won't be a market for literary writers unless we are interested in consuming literary works.
I'd like to recomend the Releif Journal, a Christian literary publication that a friend of mine edits for.
http://www.reliefjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=4&Itemid=26
2. Allison had the following to say on Aug 29 at 1:53 PM:
I'm a junior at Kansas State University and an English major, so this semester I'm taking a bunch of lit classes, one of which focuses on American literature from the 1600s to the Civil War. We've been talking in this class about the sharp divide between Catholics and Protestants during this time in history that would eventually lead to the Puritans and Pilgrims leaving for America.
If there was one thing that split these two groups, it was the question of art and its place in worship. Catholic churches at this time were very elaborate buildings, graced with beautiful architecture and breathtaking iconographies of saints, not to mention lavish music and worship. The Protestants focused more on simplicity in their worship, singing straight from the Psalms and avoiding anything that they saw the Catholics doing, which often meant doing away with all the embellishments as described above.
My point in writing this is that it's not difficult for me to see where traces of this old dichotomy between Christians are still present, especially in a literary sense. I've studied T.S. Eliot and Flannery O'Connor in the past at college, as well as other writers from the liturgical tradition. I can't think of any writer overtly Evangelical that I've studied, other than possibly Anne Bradstreet, a Puritan poet who is still highly regarded in literary circles. This means I would have to agree with Williams. However, like Candice, I'm not sure that denominational differences can completely answer the absence of great Evangelical authors.
So what other factors are there?
3. Paul had the following to say on Aug 29 at 1:55 PM:
I was under the impression that C. S. Lewis was an evangelical. Which I guess leads me to the question is it impossible to be Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox *and* an Evangelical? I can think of quite a few examples of Evangelical Anglicans.
The main point is an interesting one though. I think that society has come to value literature less, as other means of communication have become more widely available. I also wonder if some Evangelical churches, in attempting to define a clear sacred-secular divide have started to catagorize all forms of art as unimportant worldly pursuits.
4. Allison had the following to say on Aug 29 at 2:10 PM:
I'm a junior at Kansas State University and an English major, so this semester I'm taking a bunch of lit classes, one of which is a survey of American literature from the 1600s to the Civil War.
In this class we've been talking a lot about the sharp divide between Catholics and Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries that would eventually lead to the Puritans and the Pilgrims leaving England for the newness of American soil. There were several things that drove a wedge between Catholics and Protestants at this time, but one of the most significant was art and its place in worship.
Catholic churches at this time were held in elaborate buildings with beautiful architecture, decorated from corner to corner with breathtaking iconographies. The Baroque period of music was in full swing, so worship services were accompanied by lavish music. The Protestants took a complete 180 degree view of worship, emphasizing the Bible above all else by only singing Psalms a capella, eliminating all embellishments like the ones described above as their convictions led them.
I'm a Southern Baptist who loves art of all kinds and believes it has a significant place in our understanding of and relationship to God; obviously thoughts on church, worship and art have changed immensely since the 17th century. Still, it's not difficult for me to see that traces of the dichotomy over art is still present, especially in a literary sense. Thus I have to agree with Williams that I can't think of any major literary figure that I have studied in college who was a practicing Evangelical (other than Anne Bradstreet, a Puritan poet who still was surrounded by liturgical tradition).
However, like Candice, I don't want to attribute this absence of Evangelical authors solely to denominational differences. There's got to be some other reasons...
Anyone else have any ideas?
5. Sydney B had the following to say on Aug 29 at 2:17 PM:
While I consider myself a lover of the ideals of literature, let it be known before I share my thoughts that my friends call me a book snob, and tend to dismiss my opinions accordingly. Like Candice, I wonder where the evangelical literature is, but I hesitate to blame the academy for it. In fact, in response to Candice’s question, I have read most of the authors mentioned in courses offered at the two universities I have attended: both of them public state schools. One of these schools is ranked very highly by US News & World Report, the other is known more for its athletic program than its literature deparments. Both included great liturgical writers in their literature syllabi. So I’m not convinced that a supposed lack of reading great liturgical literature has lead to the dearth of evangelical literature. I think it might have more to do with the way our church treats the arts in general.
While music has fared better than most of the arts, the evangelical church seems not to have the imagination for literature. I think Candice’s source hit on a key element: the phrase commonly used to describe literature such as Flannery O’Connor’s is “the sacramental imagination.” This idea says that the standoff of a grandmother and a murderer, or the ability of a hobbit to hope in the midst of despair, contains an element of spiritual truth to it, just as the foodstuffs of an everyday meal taken in church can carry at once daily nourishment, the history of the Passover and the death of a very real man. Protestants tend to mistrust the headier symbolism. We would rather be told that Jesus loves us than be told a parable about divine love. In some ways, I believe this is good. Directness can be healing, and important, and the writers of scripture were direct at times. However, I think Evangelical writers (and, perhaps more importantly, readers) have lapsed to a point where we are more confortable with the directness of sermons and articles than with the subtleties and complexities of literature. Literature usually involves more obscurity than clarity; Flannery O’Conner, after all, writes very little, if anything, that is directly about Go, and if you aren’t paying attention, you might miss it. Which is exactly what most evangelicals don’t want to happen – and as a result, many attempts to create evangelical literature come closer to moralizing than storytelling.
Instead of trying the complexities of literature, religious or non, many of my Christian friends limit their fictional reading to books which are stamped with the approval of the chain Christian bookstores: writers like LaHaye, Rivers, and Perretti. I find these authors to be the Christian equivalent of romance and westerns: the writing is just as poor, and I don’t find their theology much more defensible. If we want evangelical literature, we should try stepping outside of our tendency to censor, and see what we find. My Christian bookstore only recently began stocking Tolkien (more to capitalize on the movies than any sudden epiphany about his spiritual weight, I fear), and I have yet to see T.S. Eliot grace the shelves. How many evangelicals are willing to trade their Left Behind and Christian romances for Dostoevsky and John Updike? For that matter, how many would like to graduate from Narnia and try Lewis’s Till We Have Faces?
But, if you aren’t willing to crack open the Brother K just yet (and I don’t blame you, although you should at least put it on your list) I’d like to recommend Marilynne Robinson’s novel Gilead, which is written from the point of view of a Congregationalist minister. Not only does it deal with questions of ethics, theology, and love, it won the Pulitzer Prize. And yes, I read her in school.
6. Denise Morris had the following to say on Aug 29 at 3:06 PM:
Great post, Sydney B.
7. Cassandra had the following to say on Aug 29 at 3:46 PM:
I have read most if not all of those authors. I also hope to be able to write literary works. However... I guess I'm not your typical evangelical Christian. I am a creative writing major for one thing, so... I'm being "groomed" for that, if you will. I also didn't grow up in the typical evangelical Christian household. My family stopped going to church when I was 5 or 6, so I only had the faintest of Christian influences if any on my education, and most anything I had by the time I was reading literature was self imposed. I am coming from a different position than many boundless readers that grew up on the church pews might be.
I suppose my question is, when you say that it might have to do with our education, what do you mean? Perhaps that evangelical christians or their parents would weed out classical literature because of objectional topics and thus they aren't versed in literary works?
8. Ryan had the following to say on Aug 29 at 3:47 PM:
I would agree with the good professor - it is the church's fault. The church is the center of a Christian's life, not the school system, and when the church doesn't do anything to inspire the imagination, good literature cannot be produced. Evangelicals have no place for any kind of sacramental theology (which Sydney brought up), except that of Zwingli. And sacramental theology is what O'Connor and Chesterton were drawing on heavily - their Roman Catholicism wouldn't allow anything else.
For those interested, a theologian named Peter Leithart wrote an article called "Why Evangelicals Don't Write" published in Credenda/Agenda. Here is the address:
http://www.credenda.org/issues/18-2liturgia.php
9. Carrie had the following to say on Aug 29 at 3:55 PM:
I do think the church is to blame for poor writers. I belong to the PCA, which is a denomination that seeks to place a high emphasis on education. Many PCA churches start their own schools within their church walls. If the pastor is preaching a watered down, moralistic sermon what is there to provoke the heart of congregants to seek out more knowledge?
If the church is just telling you to "go out and do something good for your neighbor", why should you feel led to pick up a Jane Austen novel? Or C.S. Lewis for that matter?
If the church is showing you flashy PowerPoint presentations on Sunday morning instead of encouraging you to engage your mind with God's Word, why should the congregation think that they have to actually pick up a book and flip through it? Why would they do anything besides reading on-line devotionals?
I think how a church goes about worship speaks volumes about how they view education and knowledge in general. If they water things down, present "hyped up" drama presentations, show short films, and sing cheesy choruses; what reason the congregation would have to do anything but pick up anything "classic" with some teeth to it???
10. Jake had the following to say on Aug 29 at 5:46 PM:
Just a thought on this subject...
Perhaps another factor is the kind of life experiences evangelical christians have. If memory serves, C.S. Lewis was a soldier amoung other things before becoming an author. Another person I would consider a Christian author is Laura Ingalls Wilder. She is a great example of a person who's experience helped her to become a great author. Laura Ingalls also didn't start writing until later in life.
I'm not certain that studying writing in college is the best way to become a great author (of course it can't hurt). I do agree that being well read (not to mention well versed in the Bible) should strengthen your writing ability.
I would like to see Christian authors do a better job of gracefully illustrating Christian principles in a work of fiction. We've all heard people in both Christian and secular circles refer to book quotes as a philosophy they use to guide their life. It would be nice to read a new book where the protagonist realistically applies Christian principles to his actions without being corny.
11. Leah had the following to say on Aug 29 at 6:42 PM:
My fellow Evangelicals publish reams upon reams of prose. What we have not tended to write is anything recognized as having literary value by the literary world
I read that and say- "Yeah, so?"
That which is written by evangelicals is not supposed to be of high literary merit. Most of the time they are theological, or educational- not intended to be literary works!
What's more, I can't believe people are condemning the church for not educating its congregants on writing good literature. IT'S A CHURCH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Not a school! Church is not there to teach us reading, writing and 'rithmetic. Sure, if a church wants to start a school, by all means, go for it. But people, literature is amoral. In the grand scheme of things, it is not important. The church has more important things to worry about.
12. Vanessa had the following to say on Aug 29 at 6:56 PM:
I believe there will be a resurgence of Evangelical writing in generations to come. A small group of friends and I are endeavoring to read, discuss, and write about the great authors of the past.
I do think that the Evangelical church has gone the way of the popular culture; from the way we schedule services to the smattering of Christian Education classes that teach more practical knowledge than real Biblical doctrines and truths to the fast-food mentality of video announcements and continental breakfasts provided at contemporary services.
Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy not having to worry about breakfast on Sunday morning and love our awesome worship band singing the contemporary worship ballads. However, I miss the hymns along with those praise choruses; I miss the expository teachings along with the "5 P's" on a powerpoint presentation. I miss church as CHURCH and not entertainment.
I think "literature" has somehow become out-dated because it isn't a quick read. Society has programmed us with 30 second commercials and 21 minute sitcoms full of prattle and exaggeration. There is no room for the Tolkiens (except on the silver screen), there is no room for the Eliot's (unless you count excerpts in Christian Education curriculum). We have room for the Peretti and the J.K. Rowlings of the world, but not for C.S. Lewis.
Sad. I pray that the next generation will be taught well by the parents of MY generation and maybe we can stem the tide of complacency.
13. DT had the following to say on Aug 29 at 7:12 PM:
Let's not blame the schools for this one. I went to a private high school and read NONE of those authors and then went to a public university and read ALL of them. It doesn't boil down to public vs. private or Christian vs. non-Christian schooling environment. It boils down to laziness and the unwillingness to first read the greats, and then attempt greatness of our own. Period.
14. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Aug 29 at 7:20 PM:
No surprise to me. How many evangelical pastors/clergy are avid writers? Not too many probably, at least in the literature sense (sending/answering e-mails about next week's church picnic doesn't count).
However, to be fair, I think we are being a bit too critical here. First of all, a writer generally isn't referred to as a "classic" or "great" until long after his/her death. What makes the NY Times Best Seller list today may very well be forgotten in 50 years. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years no one picked up a Harry Potter book or even remember them except those around today.
Furthermore, consider that the number of "greats" out there is a relatively small, nay, very small percentage of all aspiring writers. I'm sure C.S. Lewis had a number of contemporaries who were both writers of literature and Christian (Tolkein most notably), and yet I can't remember any others during that era other than him.
Finally, I think we get into the trap thinking that we NEED to have an evangelical literary author rather than just an author who happens to also be an evangelical. We are looking for another Narnia, LotR, or other great work with subtle or not-so-subtle Christian overtones but I don't think that's necessary. Because although I do agree that what people read can have an influnce over someone's life the greater influence is that from a person's actions. And that's something we can all do, regardless of our profession or hobby.
So I would not lament so much that we are lacking good Christian literary works (despite the fact that we are), but that our society as a whole has declined in reading comprehension and vocabulary.
15. BDB had the following to say on Aug 30 at 12:11 AM:
>>I was under the impression that C. S. Lewis was an evangelical.<<
Yes, evangelicals embrace him. I find it interesting that some evangelicals who don't believe Catholics are Christians somehow embrace C.S. Lewis enthusiastically as a Christian author. Maybe if they read more widely they'd realize how close Anglican theology is to Catholic theology.
I will admit that I wasn't pushed to those authors in public schools. It was definitely private college professors who pushed the classics. It had a lot to do with political philosophy professors pushing the classics like Plato and Aristotle, too. Then I learned that Thomas Aquinas combined Aristotle and Augustine, and his stuff was interesting. It wasn't until years later that I finally figured out St. Thomas was Catholic. What's been an interesting project over the summer has been reading up on various U.S. denominations and understanding the finer points of their theology. Then I root around Wikipedia and find Catholic orders that are dedicated to the same theology - individual piety or care for the poor to pick a couple of examples.
I do think that a big part of the problem is the evangelical emphasis on education being just for a job. That pushes people into majors like business. There's also the problem where many humanities professors, especially at public universities, are very much anti-Christian. That can push students out of reading classic literature and into majors that are less hostile - business, pre-law and pre-med being examples.
While my undergraduate institution was private, it wasn't Christian. During my freshman year I had one class that really created a philosophical problem for me, but I couldn't put my finger on it. I went to the Chaplain to the University and outlined my vague concerns. He said, "Ah-you're not a determinist." And he gave me some of those hard books to read about theology and philosophy.
Maybe this should be on the "mentor" topic. I also got a "preparation for college" book from my grandfather, who was once a guidance counselor. It had a list of books that should be read before graduating from High School, including many classics. I was stunned that I hadn't even read them by the end of college. So I started reading them on my own.
This is a long way of saying that individuals probably won't read the great books until they run into someone who inspires them to read.
16. A.J. had the following to say on Aug 30 at 6:23 AM:
Sydney, Thanks for your post. I agree 100%.
17. Robert J Espe had the following to say on Aug 30 at 7:23 AM:
Paul,
Just thought you'd like to know, Lewis was Anglican. Says in the very first pages of "Mere Christianity" that he was an "ordinary layman of the Church of England". Lewis just didn't place much stock in any denominational lines. The point of "Mere Christianity" is that all Christians have more in common than not. Even if, like Lewis you believe in Purgatory, infant baptism, transubstantiation, and have no problem with Papal infalability or reverancing Mary.
I don't think the difference in literature can be attributed to where authors go to school. Evangelicism isn't that young. Even the (relatively new) pentecostal movement is about 100 years old, so we had authors at the same time Lewis was alive. Evangelicals (as a generalization) tend not to care about theology (at least not as anyone else has understood it before the all knowing self) so they don't write (or read) about it. After all, if you only need to read the Bible yourself, there isn't much use for history or tradition. Self help books (i.e. purpose driven life) and fiction (I actually enjoyed Left Behind, though I doubt I'd re-read them, but books like "Blink", [spiritual sci-fi] "shudders") can only be so rich if the author hasn't molded themselves through a study of Christian literary tradition. Hence the the lack.
It is also worth noting that you can't expect all authors to be story telling geniuses like Lewis or Tolkien. People that good only come around so often.
18. Kathryn had the following to say on Aug 30 at 9:31 AM:
He asserts that the really good literary writers anymore aren't Evangelicals. "The modern Christians who are important writers are all from liturgical churches: Anglican..."
As an Anglican evangelical myself, why isn't it possible to be both? A quick search of Wiktionary comes up with these definitions of evangelical:
1 (obsolete) Pertaining to the gospel(s) of the Christian New Testament
2 Pertaining to the doctrines or teachings of the Christian gospel or Christianity in general.
3 Protestant; specifically, designating European churches which were originally Lutheran rather than Calvinist.
4 Pertaining to a movement in Protestant Christianity that stresses personal conversion and the authority of the Bible (evangelicalism).
I agree with all of those. And I also agree with Leah. So what?
19. Heather had the following to say on Aug 30 at 11:05 AM:
Well, actually, Kathryn, Anglicanism predates Luther and Calvin, and was never associated with either of those men. So Anglicanism is excluded from the fold of "evangelical" churches by the third definition you list. Of course, that does not mean that an Anglican Christian cannot have an evangelical outlook! =) Evangelical as a perspective can apply to any Christian, including Catholics, which is why it is hard to be sure that people using the word mean the same thing.
As far as why evangelicals can't/don't write good literature, I think the problem is exemplified by Leah and Kathryn's response of "so what?" The evangelical church, as defined by Kathryn's 4th definition, gets some important things right about the Gospel, of course. However,the evangelical vision can be rather narrow. Yes, personal conversion and the Bible are important, but the Gospel goes beyond that. The Gospel should touch every aspect of creation, including created works of literature. Surely the fact that God has given certain people talent as writers is an indication that He wants these gifts to be used to the best of the writers' abilities. Evangelicals should be concerned that they are not contributing to all areas of life in proportion to the talents God has given them. I think the issue goes much deeper than a poor school system.
As a side note, I think Mark Noll's book The Closing of the Evangelical Mind is very relevant to this discussion.
20. charles had the following to say on Aug 30 at 11:40 AM:
Presently I am involved in argentine tango -- not only a dance but one called by Billy Sunday "that hellish dance". Mark my words -- someday ballroom dancing will be taught at evangelical schools and christian musicians will develop lyrics for godly socializing between men and women at these venues.
21. Paul had the following to say on Aug 30 at 11:46 AM:
BDB & Robert,
Thankyou, I know C. S. Lewis was an Anglican, but I'm still not convinced he wasn't an Evangelical as well.
Leah is of course right. All Art forms, including literature are amoral and unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Similarly science and commerce are amoral and unimportant, so why is there so much preaching on using our money to the glory of God, and so little on using art or science to advance His kingdom?
22. Jacob had the following to say on Aug 30 at 12:45 PM:
I think there is a problem in terminology here. Many scholars are using "evangelical" to talk about the Non-denominational/conservative baptist/pietism movement that has developed in the 20th century. It has its roots in mid and late 19th century revival movements. They emphasize personal holiness (avoiding things like drinking, gambling, smoking, etc) and eschewed traditional forms of religion (even Protestant liturgy found in Lutheran and Presbyterian churches) and educated clergy. As Robert pointed out, they emphasize the individual and his ability to interpret the Bible. This movement is referred to as "Evangelical," even though the term has been used other places to mean different things (such as the list of definitions that Kathryn shared). It allows for a basic division within Christianity: Catholic, Confessional Protestants (Anglicans, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, Lutheran and Calvinistic Baptists), and Evangelicals. It is a very helpful term because many of these evangelicals don't consider themselves protestant in the historical sense of strongly affirming the Five Solas of the Reformation (not that some of them don't), but they don't consider themselves catholic either. Hence, Evangelicalism, as a term, has a new use.
Nathan Hatch's "The Democratization of American Christianity", D.G. Hart's "The Lost Soul of American Protestantism" and Mark Noll's "A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada," as well as the insight of Dr. Mark Kalthoff, are my information sources.
Sorry about the length of this...hopefully it will ease confusion and not increase it.
23. Joy W. had the following to say on Aug 30 at 1:49 PM:
Sydney B.: You don't have to "graduate from Narnia" to read 'Til We Have Faces.' I have them side by side on my bookshelf (each read multiple times), and they're doing just fine. :)
24. Zusanne had the following to say on Aug 30 at 6:03 PM:
Also regarding Lewis's classification:
Jacob, thank you for providing a more accurate historical perspective on Lewis.
Too often we throw around terms, forgetting that they meant different things in different times.
My two cents: "evangelical" in Lewis's time also meant two different things in two different places. In England, "evangelical" often meant any church not associated with the state church; "evangelical" on the European continent AT THE SAME TIME meant any church that WAS associated with the state church.
Both quite different meanings from the way we associate the word today.
25. Hermes had the following to say on Aug 30 at 7:46 PM:
Heather, the title of Mark Noll's book is The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. You may be conflating the title with that of The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom, who was not a Christian.
26. Leah had the following to say on Aug 30 at 8:36 PM:
Paul, when I made my comment, I was not implying that we shouldn't use everything we can to further God's kingdom. By all means, use money, science, arts, literature, anything, to further God's kingdom. These things simply need be to used, not glorified or made into masterpieces as Donald T Williams seems to think.
27. Tami had the following to say on Aug 30 at 8:47 PM:
Bret Lott, an evangelical Christian, is a writing instructor and has written many novels. One of them, "Jewel," was an Oprah book. (However much currency you give to that, it means the book has garnered quite a bit of attention.)
Anyone read his work? I have "Jewel" waiting patiently on my bookshelf, and I've read parts of "Before We Get Started," his book on the writing craft (and it's quite good; he does think Christianly about the writing process).
28. Sydney B had the following to say on Aug 31 at 6:38 AM:
Joy W.: excellent point. It would be a sad day indeed if we ever truly graduated from Narnia. Thanks for quibbling with my less-than-thought-out vocabulary!
Leah and Paul: I would disagree with your statements that art, along with science and commerce, are amoral. I beleive that Jesus's life calls us to tinge every aspect of ours with a morality of sorts - this is why we can't follow rules to follow him. How I treat the clerk at the grocery store, and how I choose to spend my money, is vastly important to my savior. There are more biblical references to money than their are to nearly every other topic, but I hear more in our churches about tax-deductible donations than I do about redistributing wealth and caring for the poor. The beauty of our faith is that we can't get away from it, even in the minutist, most essential aspects of our lives.
And so I think the same goes for literature. I presume Leah calls it unimportant because it is hard to see how a book on the shelf works to end poverty or brings someone to know Christ, compared with the actions of an individual - and I think it is vastly important that we act, much more so than we do now. But literature is niether amoral nor unimportant. Literature helps us remember our calling. Our Bible is truth, but much of it is written in stories and verse. Jesus used parables to teach. When the Israelites slipped away, they were reminded not that God is omniscient, omni-present, and all-powerful, but that he is the God who brought them out of Egypt. I believe God orchestrated some of the events in the OT to be dramatic so that we would have not just the truth, but a good story.
Also, for Lewis fans, remember that he became a Christian in the first place because he could not escape the wonder of the 'myth of the god who died.' It was the story of Christ which tugged at him until he was ready for the truth of Christ.
29. James had the following to say on Aug 31 at 8:21 AM:
Literature is VERY important. I forget who said it, but I know Ravi Zacharias quoted him (now there's a man whose non-fiction is still a work of art....just hearing him speak and how he speaks is magnificent) as saying,
"I want to know the man who writes a nations songs. I don't care who writes her laws."
Prose and literature are extremely influential. It is a truthful statement that we don't read nearly as much as we used to, and that's part of the problem (since evangelicalism in the West is mostly centered in America, for the most part). However, I can't help but be disgusted by the flippant "so what" of previous posters.
Prose has a power and draw unlike most other forms of art and expression. By reading it, you literally taking in who the author is. A good writer cannot write without themselves being expressed in some fashion in their work. And, though that, we get even deeper glimpses of themselves that would otherwise be indescribable in any other fashion other than being behind the scenes in a good piece of literature.
God gave us the gifts of story and song, and we're saying "so what" to one of those? What a waste! We need more Steven Lawhead's out there. We need another C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkein. The beauty of fine literature and poetry has a power which, in some ways, even overshadows the power of music in artistic expression. King David wrote much of the psalms, and that is poetry. God's revealing of how He has ordained marriage to be is most notably contained in a song: the song of Solomon, which when read is pure poetry.
We see the indescribable and the transcendent expressed in literature and poetry, since they cannot be described....only shown.
As a former Episcopalian, I often long for a beautiful liturgy done by bible-believing Christians (don't get that very often in the western anglican world anymore). Why? Because it is worship and praise to God in a most beautifully artistic form. The whole service down to the processions and what is read and responded to is pregnant with biblical significance. Sure, without Christ at the heart's center it's just a tired old ritual, but with Christ at the center in one's heart the service comes alive in a way that is difficult to objectively (or even subjectively) describe.
No wonder the liturgical churches have produced the great writers in recent times. Their very style or worship is based in the same "stuff" that makes for great writers. Doesn't mean that we can't have great writers come out of our evangelical and non-denominational churches, though. But we need to get over this pathetic, apathetic "so what?" attitude of ours and embrace the beauty of worshipping God in high literature.....after all, too much of the literature now is anti-God, so let's bring back to this God-given form of art the worship of Him who gave it to us.
30. Oxanna had the following to say on Aug 31 at 7:40 PM:
Interesting point, although I have to admit, since 1960 I haven't seen much *secular* literature that I like, for that matter! Some of which has to do with a growing lack of true literacy and a changing worldview.
Interestingly, most of the writers listed wrote pre-1960 or so. Does he have any examples of *current* liturgical churchgoing authors?
31. Leah had the following to say on Sep 1 at 1:24 AM:
Sydney B, you're reading far too much into my comments.
To quote myself- "I was not implying that we shouldn't use everything we can to further God's kingdom. By all means, use money, science, arts, literature, anything, to further God's kingdom. These things simply need be to used, not glorified or made into masterpieces as Donald T Williams seems to think."
I also think you're missing the definition of amoral. If something is amoral, it means it isn't either moral or immoral. It's how you USE the thing which makes it moral or immoral. Literature, along with every other amoral thing in the world, can be used for moral or immoral purposes.
You also said "I presume Leah calls (literature) unimportant because it is hard to see how a book on the shelf works to end poverty or brings someone to know Christ". Not at all. Books play a huge role in many people's salvation. But again, you've read too much into what I said. Use literature to further God's kingdom! Use anything you can! But it's not important if we aren't producing literary masterpieces as Donald T Williams thinks.
He says "What (evangelicals) have not tended to write is anything recognized as having literary value by the literary world". You will note that he says nothing about the impact of literature on Christians or evangelism, which is where you are implying literature's importance lies. I said that Mr Williams' idea of literature was not important- that we must be producing masterpieces recognised by the literary world. And I still stand by that.
32. Brent had the following to say on Sep 3 at 12:41 PM:
If you are not convinced that the blame lies with where modern writers go to church, then I have to wonder if you have been sleeping through your services. Or at the very least maybe you go to a really good evangelical church...
I have noticed that most of the writers I respect belong to the high church tradition.
I recently started reading The Wrinkle in Time series. I got a late start on it as I am well past the "young adult" stage. I love it though. Once again, L'Engle is an Episcopalian. That pesky high church leaning once again.
I think a lot of it comes down to world view and spiritual heritage. Go look for 'Christian' reviews of L'Engle or Lewis. You will find all sorts of strange accusations. I find the New Age accusations to be some of the most comical. If you know anything about the Church Fathers and Medieval theology, you can easily see where these 'New Age' themes are coming from.
I am coming to see that much of contemporary American evangelicalism is nothing other than American culture with a thin Christian layer over it. We may talk the talk, and even do theology, but we are missing out on a comprehensive world view that invigorates and orders what a lot of these writer hold dear.
Compare Tolkien's view of sub-creation, or Lewis' view of Truth and myth with your average Evangelicals view of 'fact' and 'fiction' that is taught in our churches today.
There is a lot of pragmatism in our churches mascaraing under the guise of good Christian stewardship.
33. BDB had the following to say on Sep 3 at 12:45 PM:
Literature is indeed important. It does help us understand the human condition. It also can prod us to think about how we should treat the poor, for example. Read David Copperfield, and think about how you would respond to the various situations presented regarding the poor.
34. Sydney B had the following to say on Sep 3 at 3:52 PM:
Leah, I understand the definition of amoral, but I didn’t explain my point well. I believe literature is essentially moral because in literature man mimics the creative capacity of God. I believe God provides us with a model for literature in his own literary works: the Psalms and the creations stories in Genesis are not just works of truth, but contain the beauty of literature. God used human individuals such as Moses and David to write these works as both truth and literature. A work of literature, like anything else in our fallen order, may be moral or immoral, but literature in itself is moral. (Just as, I would say, sex is moral, but individuals may use sex morally or immorally). In addition, giving the best of ourselves, in our lives and our work, including writing, glorifies God.
Your assertion that literature can be useful but need not strive to be a masterpiece misses, I think, the fundamental idea of what literature is. Part of the idea of fine art is that communication happens in the intangible form of that art. In this sense, there are books, and there is literature; both have a place in the kingdom. For instance, we need useful books on how to pray; we also need poetry to remind us that prayer is something so powerful as to be nearly indescribable: “Prayer the Churches banquet, Angels age, / Gods breath in man returning to his birth, / The soul in paraphrase, heart in pilgrimage, / The Christian plummet sounding heav'n and earth” (Herbert).
I am not saying that all written works written by or for Christians must be “masterpieces recognized by the literary world.” I am saying that if none of them are, then we are spiritually impoverishing ourselves, we are missing out on one of the joys offered by our creator, and one of the ways we can honor him.
35. Katie had the following to say on Sep 4 at 1:23 PM:
Sydney B - well said!
36. Leah had the following to say on Sep 4 at 6:47 PM:
Sydney, you said "For instance, we need useful books on how to pray; we also need poetry to remind us that prayer is something so powerful as to be nearly indescribable".
Yes, but that isn't a "literary masterpiece" that would be "recognised by the literary world". The literary world couldn't give two hoots if you're writing about prayer. Again, you are saying literature's importance lies in the impact it can have on the Christian life, and I agree. What I DON'T agree with is the idea that our literature needs to be appealing to a non-Christian literary world.