Fallen and Flawed

Demian,

As I’m not familiar with the book or the author, I’m going to assume she’s not a Christian writer.

If that’s so, then, like the rest of the world, she and other authors who are writing from a secular world view will continue to determine their own boundaries. I touched on some of this in your last post.

Our response as Christians is to simply not partake in their creative efforts if it offends our sensibilities. As in all things subjective, offended sensibilities will vary from person to person.

If, on the other hand, she is a Christian, then your issue about boundaries has some merit. But even then it can quickly become a slippery slope.

I personally think that as Christian artists, no subject is off limits. L’Engle sums up my thinking when she writes, “There is nothing so secular that it can not be sacred, and that is one of the deepest messages of the Incarnation.”

For Christians artists of all disciplines, how we present these subjects is where the boundary discussion like yours lies.

But having a moral debate with someone who defines their own morality instead of God’s seems to me to be a fruitless exercise.

Sounds like something she could have just left in a journal under the mattress. To the people who haven’t been where she has with respect to being molested, it’s too much information. To the people reading it who know what it’s like, it’s unhealthy drudging up explicit memories for themselves. I could play the devil’s advocate and say that since it was her story, it is hers to decide what she lets be known. But when the pedophile with an ability to write comes along and writes something to cater to his own desires and those like him.. he can argue freedom of speech and whatnot. If you want to get it off your chest, write it all down and go burn it in the yard and move on. I don’t come from the same past as her, but when you have a past issue(s) you can’t get over, that ritual helps.

Richard: I think I hear you saying this but not sure…Are you suggesting that we self-police self-expression while allowing it to expand without boundaries?

j shelton: yes!

I think it’s a hard balance. On one side I think it’s wrong to live in denial of the evils of the world – pretending either such things don’t happen, or that when they do they’re “not so bad”. It’s also wrong to dwell on such evils, especially out morbid fascination (which I believe is the drive behind most secular media).

I think it’s probably not necessary to rehash the details of such an event to the greater public audience, but at the same time, people need to be aware of the horrific reality of such abuse.

People who have never had to experienced trauma, can be incredibly ignorant of it’s reality and that’s a dangerous thing.
I have heard some unbelievably disgusting jokes about paedophilia and related crimes. The fact that anyone could joke about such things testifies to how separated from the suffering of others we can be. No one who had experienced something like that, or had a child who had, or had truly empathised with someone else’s suffering would dare joke about it.

Those who have never had to face something personally, can become quite arrogant about it.

I think we need to understand the reality of evil in the world, and understand those who have experienced such things.
But, never for entertainment. And that is a fine line.
So much of the news/television/movies is about morbid curiosity. Graphic topics just because it’s entertaining. Quite quickly we’re slipping back into Gladiator contests and watching criminals fed to lions for fun.

It’s all about the right motivation for telling, and empathy in listening.
We don’t want to ignore sin and suffering, but we don’t want embrace it or become desensitised either.

Alyssa: Fine line, indeed. And I agree with you that the world needs to know the evils of this world. I hope you don’t hear me saying we shouldn’t expose those evils. I’m arguing for discretion in HOW we expose those traumas. Like I mentioned, Karr sympathetically dealt with rape without going into explicit detail. It is a fine line, and somewhat subjective, I agree. So a difficult topic. I appreciate your thoughts.

D,

What I’m saying is that to the Christian artist, every aspect of life, both the good, the bad and everything in between, should not be off limits in our work.

But how we treat these topics or aspects of life in our work should reflect our beliefs and worldview.

I’ve drawn and painted nudes as I learned to be an artist. But I know where the line to pornography lies and don’t cross it. If I’m writing fiction about couples and sex is part of their relationship, I don’t need to go into graphic detail.

But nudity and sex are not taboo subjects for Christian artists in themselves, but it’s how the artist handles them that is the issue. And this is the issue you had with Karr.

But if Karr is not a Christian, we can’t hold her to Christian standards.

Make sense?

I do not see why, when it comes to art, Christian standards should be different to non-Christian standards. If you are an artist, writer etc., either you create good music, literature etc., or you don’t. Nothing to do with your religion.

Thing about literature is that it can depict anything. This includes many things that – like Demian rightly suggests – would not be able to be turned into a movie. The reason is that making a movie requires a re-enactment of an event, and certainly re-enactment of child abuse would not be right. And it is mainly because you wouldn’t want to put your child actor through something like this – even though it’s only pretend. It’s different with adults. We have seen many movies with rape scenes that would make you cry, but it’s just easier for adult actors to re-enact them – they know it’s not for real. On the other hand, in the book it is only the writer and the reader, and their imagination – no actors required. If you don’t like the scene, just skip the pages, like Demian did.

I don’t know what the point of what I’m about to say is but that hasn’t stopped me yet .

Growing up with parents who were loving and gentle to a fault and having two young daughters of my own I can’t even think about this. It is such a horrific thing to me that I just have to walk away. I can’t even look at that picture with the girl and the shadowy figure behind it.

I know that reveals an idol for me but I can’t see any good that comes out of this kind of thing.

I think Jag that it is because being a Christian generally changes your perception of what is “good”. Something may be intelligent or exciting, but may not be good in a spiritual sense.
It has to do with moral and ethical judgments.If your morals are based on your religion, and you think it would be immoral to portray something in art, then your religion is influencing your art (to be clear, as in my last comment I’m not saying I personally think this scene necessarily was ‘immoral’).

All artists have different motivations and influences behind what they create. Christian beliefs can be one of those motivations.
In the same way, when viewing/reading/listening to the art of another, the way we react to is based upon how we feel about the subject matter, the artists intentions etc. and often such feelings relate back to our religious convictions.

Alyssa,

I challenge you to read Mahatma Gandhi’s autobiography and still think that a Christian perception of what is good is different from everyone else’s.

In fact not only different denominations differ about what is “good”, but even individuals within your own church do. Ever heard about child abuse amongst Catholic priests? Rape or homophobia in evangelical circles? Christians are no different from normal humans.

Please try to notice the difference: if I simply write a book and include a graphic rape scene, you may call me a pornographer. But if what I write about is a painful autobiography and not fiction, then maybe it’s a catharctic process I just have to go through to overcome the past? Like I said before – you don’t have to read it. It’s just that good and evil are often in the eye of the beholder. And as a Christian you should know that you are called not to judge and not to reach for a speck in your neighbour’s eye.

An afterthough – how about the most often depicted scene in Christian art, the crucifiction? I would not want my daughter to see the bloody scene of a dying man nailed to a cross until she is old to understand. Yet you can find it in most churches! How come no-one is protesting? How come so few Christians protested against Mel Gibson’s “Passion” – a movie that only sado-masochists may like?

Jag: I protest, especially when pastors turn their sermons into graphic violence. I don’t understand the point [of the graphic detail, not the Crucifixion]. In fact, I couldn’t watch Gibson’s “Passion.” But I’m a wuss.

Jag,
I think you misunderstood my point – I don’t mean there is a specific system of “Christian views on art”, but rather than your basic views on life, humanity, and everything are going to influence how you see art – and often your religious beliefs (no matter what they happen to be) influence such world-views.

I never meant that a Christian’s perception is by definition different from everyone else’s (I am aware of the variations), but simply that it CAN be different, both between Christian and non-Christian, AND between Christians – depending on the beliefs we hold.

I most certainly never meant to imply that Christian’s aren’t “normal human beings”.
I’m simply disputing that religion has nothing to do with how one views art.
How you feel about anything is influenced by who you are as a person, your personality, what you believe about the world etc. Religion can be a big part of that. Applicable to Islam or any other religious persuasion. Any religion, any variation of religious belief that influences the way you think about things, will influence how you view art and what art you produce.

Perhaps the word “religion” has given you the wrong impression, as when I use it I simply mean “belief system” which can include (but is obviously not limited to) traditional Christian beliefs. For instance – if I’m an extreme existential or metaphysical nihilist I may not care even if someone does depict things only for the sake of pornography, as why should I care? Nothing matters or exists!
Whereas someone who believes that life has intrinsic value and a purpose, that there is a “reality”, that there is such a thing as absolute “right and wrong” or “good and evil” will feel differently.

[If your last comments were at all directed at me, I'd point you back towards my first comment - I can see how such things can be important, necessary or even "good" (though not in the pleasant sense of course).]

Anyway, I shall be away for 4 or so days so that’s my last word on the subject!

Have fun being away, Alyssa!

Demian,

From a practical point, how do you protest? Before or after the sermon? By voicing your opinion or just walking out? Do pastors listen?

Jag, I stop listening. In the middle of the sermon. And nah, not too many people listen to me when I complain.