A Fundamentalist View of Sci-Fi and Fantasy - Part Two

What fantasy novels are acceptable to Christians? 

 

As stated in Part One, that’s almost impossible to answer since everyone has a different relationship to God.  He will direct as He sees fit. I refer to the idea of a personal conviction, where God has instilled in you a specific belief that is not strictly spelled out in the Bible.

 

I wanted the concept of a personal conviction understood because it deals with things that are unscriptural. That’s very different from things that are anti-scriptural.

 

Unscriptural refers to concepts, actions, or physical objects that are not specifically addressed in the Bible. Anti-scriptural refers to items that are directly contrary to Biblical truths.

 

Fantastic elements such as other worlds, pink dragons, faeries, and space ships are all unscriptural. So is the keyboard on which I’m typing and the computer screen you’re using. These are not in the Bible but we don’t say the keyboard and monitor are evil (we all know computers are Evil, but that’s another issue). I would suggest there is nothing inherently wrong with the fantastic either. To predend that another dimension exists does not contradict Scripture. Actually, we know that there are several levels of Heaven, possibly different levels of Hell, and somplace known as Paradise.  Why not another place outside our normal one?

 

Perhaps the issue isn’t about the individual elements of the story but how those elements are used.  It doesn’t matter if the Hero is a Dwarf or and Elf. What is important is how she behaves. Is Evil glorified? Does the Hero have to resort to dirty tricks or otherwise violate the Heroes Code of Ethics?  The Fantastic, then is neither good nor evil in and of itself. My screwdriver is a useful tool but it can also be used as a weapon. So as the screwdriver becomes corrupt based on the user, so fantastic elements become corrupt as the writer uses them.

 

I asked a good friend of mine how he handles various reading material for his family.  His children are the same age as my two oldest so his views would be of interest to me and he raised a good point. There may not be one specific thing that keeps us from recommending a book or movie. Instead we have to look at the appropriateness of the work as a whole. 

 

Certainly some material is age-inappropriate. I don’t want my son reading about premarital hanky panky (you can thank David Willis for that term) in zero gravity or with various aliens as many sci-fi works have been reduced to portraying. I can, however, tolerate much of the humanistic world views espoused in sci-fi.  Star Trek is an excellent example of how humans are inherently good and will eventually overcome their failings through new technology and social structures. The benign dictatorship of the Federation controls Earth while the people work to better themselves and their society without the need for incentives such as money.  Yet the shows are mostly clean without expletives or crass behavior. Kirk’s womanizing onscreen was limited to passionate kisses and the rest left to imagination. 

 

I can enjoy Feist’s Riftwar Saga with its magic, multiple gods, and so forth even as a Redneck Fundamentalist because the overall worldview is not antagonistic toward Christianity.  Huh? Yes indeed, for the concept of Good vs. Evil is quite obvious, the Heroes are obviously Heroes and there is a clearly defined morality.  Thomas must struggle with the darkness in his soul but he overcomes. Other characters struggle against a clearly defined evil.  Even though the characters worship other gods, they are very religious and not chuck full of humanism or other anti-Christian philosophy. It may be a fanciful pagan worship, but it portrays worship in a positive light with the obvious exception of those that server darker powers. There are some points that I concern me enough so I won’t let my children read them for a few years yet. But when I feel they are old enough to understand I’ll let them read.

 

This past year my family studied the Greek and Roman mythologies. As you know, the Greeks worshipped a whole slew of gods and told remarkable tales of bravery, deceit, and war among people as well as gods. Yet my children haven’t started making altars to Zeus or any other Olympic god. Why is it ok to study false religion from a historic point of view but not read about false religion in a fantasy story?  Are these stories any better or worse than modern tales of fantasy?

 

I prefer a Christian worldview to a Humanistic one – or at the very least, I can tolerate Humanism as the background so long as I’m not beat over the head with it.  I would say I have a conviction against graphic language or descriptions of certain adult behaviors in the stories I let my children watch or read. Personally, it’s just a preference against such things. I avoid authors that use too much and stick with those that use very little. I am saddened when a perfectly good movie uses one or two instances of foul language – especially when the movie is geared toward children.

 

What I end up saying then isn’t “this fantasy is good” and “that one is bad”. Instead I am really saying “this is appropriate for my child, this one is not”.  In a similar way I say “this is appropriate for me, that one is not”. 

 

At this point I’m simply sticking with the general rule:  Read a book. Figure out the Author’s worldview and determine what elements of the story are appropriate or not for you and your family. If you find something offensive, you are free not to continue reading and perhaps you should avoid that author in the future.  Determine your preferences and compare them to any convictions you have on the subject.

 

But what about magic, you ask? I listed dragons, faeries, and other things, but I left out magic.

 

I’ll talk about that next time.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 
Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this entry.
Comments

  • 9/6/2006 12:56 PM Elliot wrote:
    The only thing I feel prompted to add to your post is to distinguish between Humanisms. Christian humanism, as it developed in the Renaissance and Reformation, is, IMHO, a great cultural achievement. Various scholars have pointed out the ways Judaism and Christianity have put humans near the center of their sacred stories in ways almost blasphemous and unimaginable to other religions. And of course, since our faith is built around Incarnation and Resurrection, we can affirm what is good in humanity, as God has.

    On the other hand, there's a kind of exclusivist secular humanism which is aggressive in its insistence that 'man is the measure of all things' and that spiritual forces outside of humanity need not apply. I would say that's the one Christians must be wary of. And even there, as you say, if it's not hitting you over the head, the Christian can say "Well, yes, I affirm parts of that position, but I feel it's too limited - it's missing some of the pieces that make up reality."
    Reply to this
    1. 9/7/2006 12:35 PM James Drury wrote:
      Right.  I was assuming secular humanism that places man in God's place. Mankind can make heaven on earth with its ability to reason and create. That's the underlining philosophy of what I call the Expansionist Science Fiction of the early writers.

      Expansionists writing in the 1930s and 1940s and even later imagined a society where everything was bigger and better. Buildings were tall and glistening, airships abounded and poverty was eliminated. We didn't just have nation-states, we had planet-states that existed in a galaxy-wide government.  They wrote about a golden age in the future.  Isaac Asimov in the Foundation series is typical of this type of fiction.

      Then sometime in the 1960s science fiction turned inward.  Internalists such as Phillip K. Dick ushered in the postmodern, post apocalyptic fiction where everything was dark, gritty, and dirty. Society was dead, people were downtrodden, and the rich lived like kings. William Gibson focused on our loss of humanity with implants and showed us how bleak the future could be.

      These trends in science fiction follow the trends in the general mood of society during those times. There are many authors that do not fit neatly in either category, of course.  Larry Niven fits better as an Expansionist but not completely. Jack Vance has a whole subgenre named after his Dying Earth.

      Where do Christian authors fit in?  They could fit in anywhere.
      Reply to this
  • 9/8/2006 11:36 AM Elliot wrote:
    And so they have! Though I think Christians have usually been a bit more comfortable with the Internalists.

    Good points.

    (I've got a series of posts on the history of Christians in SF at my blog, if you haven't seen it yet and are interested.)
    Reply to this
    1. 9/9/2006 8:19 PM James Drury wrote:
      I haven't, but I'll look for it.  I'm reading as much as I can, although sometimes having a job really gets in the way!

      (Not to imply that others don't have jobs.)
      Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.