The Jewish Girl

Our final Andersen story for the moment is "The Jewish Girl." It demonstrates another area where modern Christian writing tends to fall short: We either ignore crucial differences ("Everyone gets to Heaven somehow, because God's such a nice guy.") or overemphasize them ("You don't agree with my ideas? Are you sure you're a Christian?"). We need balance.

From time to time there's heated discussion about the place of Jews in God's Kingdom. Strangely, there's not as much discussion about the place of Gentiles there. The answer is the same: if you acknowledge Jesus as fully God and fully man, the sinless son of a virgin, the one who died in our place, and if you trust him for salvation and yield to him as Lord, you're saved. Ethnicity doesn't matter. If you don't accept him, even if you say he was a great teacher, but certainly not God, you're outside the Kingdom, and again ethnicity doesn't matter. And there are people who are moving graudally into full belief. God knows where they are.

What we believe does matter. I exchanged a-mails with someone who mentioned an episode of X-Men where they ran into Dracula. Nightcrawler, a devout Christian, could turn the vampire with a cross, when Wolverine could not. But Kitty Pryde's Jewish faith also turned the vampire.

I replied that this was the old idea of faith in faith: a sufficiently convinced atheist could have done the same thing, or a Satanist. For non-Messianic Jews believe that Jesus was just a man, not God in human form. So while Jews and Christians worship the same God in one sense, in another they don't: the God of the various Jewish creeds did not incarnate, and Jesus is not in any sense God. Historic Christianity says otherwise. A dividing point came. Until then, their God was the same; now he isn't. From a Christian standpoint, Kitty believed in a non-existent god; from a Jewish standpoint, Nightcrawler did. They could not both be right: either Jesus was God or he wasn't, and the cultural context did not allow for a fuzzy pantheistic response.

Do we have the guts to pick a side? It doesn't mean berating those on the other side, just acknowledging the difference and its importance.

A Vision of the Last Day

Yes! H. C. Andersen meets Left Behind!

Okay, no, it's not that kind of last day, but "A Vision of the Last Day" is still a good read. It's another example of what some people will call "preachy" without realizing that "preachy," if properly done, is good. Why? I suppose in this spin-sick world, people like the idea that someone actually believes something and will state it without hedging. I keep seeing "Christian" downgraded to "Inspirational" downgraded "Warm Fuzzies" downgraded to "Tepid Fluff." If you aren't securely anchored, you will drift, and the flow is always downhill. Scared of chasing people off? Don't be. The real power involved is from the Holy Spirit, who will draw people. Let him handle the PR. Our job is to present Christ faithfully.

Does that seem so horrible? It shouldn't. If you love someone, you will tend to talk about your beloved all the time. If you love Jesus, if he's your center, he will naturally come into everything you do. I wouldn't want to do a story that doesn't somehow lead to Christ, because only the story that connect to him have eternal value. Why work on a story that will burn up like dung before the saints and angels someday? Go for the gold!

The Story of a Mother

Today's story has a message. If you try that in modern writing and aren't a Big Name, they'll probably say it's "preachy" or "heavyhanded," synonyms that appear to mean, "Hey! How come you got a spine and I don't?" Worse yet, it's a message that contradicts modern soundbite piety.

Andersen's still right.

In other news, I said I'd explain why you should have a message (and a calling, too) or shut up. It's simple: writers today are effectively either teachers or prophets, and if you aren't called as either one, shut up. There's enough nattering already.

You can be in a subgroup (encouraging and exhorting are essentially types of prophecy, as I understand it), but unless God gives you something to say, you shouldn't say it anyway.

Now, I've encountered people who want it both ways. If you point out a theological or scriptural problem, they'll say, "Well, it's fiction. It's for Entertainment Purposes Only." (Just like a phone-in psychic! How cool is that?)

"Well, if it's just fiction, what's the harm in correcting it a bit?"

"I can't do that! GOD gave me this story!"

He gave you an unchangeable story For Entertainment Purposes Only? Cosmic!

Now, if the story is God-given, you are a teacher at least, more likely a prophet. And presumably God doesn't contradict what he says in the Bible. This is why it's astonishing how few Christian writers bother to read the Bible or otherwise check their facts. (Remember what used to happen to false prophets...)

The truth is more important than Your Story. Even if you think you're writing For Entertainment Purposes Only, you aren't. Just like sports and entertainment celebrities are role models even if they say they aren't, you're teaching your reader whether you like it or not. Shape up or shut up.

The Loveliest Rose in the World

Okay, again it's Andersen, but this time more in your face: The Loveliest Rose in the World.

So, would this story make it today? In some areas, perhaps. What's the problem? Well, it must be with readers, writers, or editors/publishers (or some combination thereof).

Is it readers? To the extent that they aren't reading this sort of thing, yes, and that we can blame on parents and teachers (in that order) who aren't doing their job. But there are readers--plenty of them, I think--who would read this.

Writers? Most of them are in roughly the same boat as the readers, though they usually read more. (Unfortunately, it's usually modern dreck.)

So that leaves editors and publishers. Why do they tend to avoid stuff like this? Let's be blunt: it's generally moral cowardice bolstered with ignorance. They say it won't sell because it's old-fashioned. So's Jane Austin, and she's done pretty well over the last decade. Too preachy? What about the "Left Behind" series? The Christian Booksellers Association is more likely to go for something like this, but its members ultimately worship the bottom line too much to risk even something that isn't that risky. A lot of new "independent" Christian publishers seem to be stuck in stealth mode: they don't want to antagonize non-Christians (who watch a lot of Christian TV and listen to a lot of Christian radio and music anyway), so they are effectively Christian in name only.

So what's the answer? I think it's up to the writers to fulfill their calling regardless of what others do. God will find an audience for his message. You say you don't have a message? Then please-please-please shut up. I'll back that up tomorrow.

"IN THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF THE SEA"

I'm going to take a few days to try to call you back to some classics. They're short stories by Hans Christian Andersen (yes, of "The Ugly Duckling" and "The Little Mermaid" fame). The stories can be found online, but I've posted a version based on Jean Hersholt's. It's fairly mild compared to some we'll see in the days ahead, but it's still a good example of Christian fiction. In days to come, I'll comment on why we aren't seeing fiction like this very much these days. But do read the story!