Apostolic Identity Under the Microscope
As we continue to provide a forum for readers and writers in hopes of birthing quality Apostolic fiction, we must think long-term. Given that a work and its characters come under the microscope for critique by the reader, we need to understand that when we write, we are staging a representation of Apostolicdom—a specimen on a slide, as it were.The Mormon Experiment
For instance, in our reading group, we just read “Missionaries,” a short story by a young writer named Bradford Tice. We can’t determine if the writer is Mormon or not, but the story is most definitely about Mormon characters. It’s the only Mormon fiction I’m aware of, so two things happen:
1. The fact that this story was picked up by The Atlantic gives fresh hope that editors and publishers are interested in non-mainstream religious fiction, which is great news for us.
2. I realized that our group’s process of reading and analyzing this story is the same process non-Apostolic readers will use to read and ingest our Apostolic fiction.
So What?
Here’s what happened. As a reader, I had a hard time drawing the line between what parts of the characters were just their human attributes and what parts were due to their Mormon faith. My instinct was to read everything as, “Oh, so that’s what all Mormons are like.” Not a very responsible read on my part, but that's our tendency as mortal readers.
Here’s how that applies to us as Apostolic writers. If we write a story with a character who wears a blue ball cap at all times, our readers could make a generalization that all Apostolics wear blue ball caps. Now obviously I’m exaggerating for effect, but the point remains: readers who have no familiarity with our faith have every right to view what we create as representative of Apostolic identity.
Putting It into Practice
I’m convinced that readers are open to Apostolic fiction, and based on the recently published Mormon story, publishers will give us a chance. But we as Apostolics must be sensitive to how we portray Apostolic identity. Remember the old adage “You’re the only Bible some people will ever read?” Well, that’s the case here quite literally. If we write a quality story that gets national or even regional attention, those characters are going to be the face of Apostolics for many readers. That’s why it’s important we keep having these discussions. It’s why we need to understand our Apostolic identity and work diligently on the best techniques to effectively portray it.
Currently Reading - Literature: A Portable Anthology by Bedford/St. Martin's
posted by Lee Ann at
11/24/2007 01:40:00 PM
18 Comments:
A curious post; I wonder, though, what you're referring to when you say "Apostolic fiction"? Are you alluding to fiction merely WRITTEN by Apostolics? Or are you speaking of works meant to promote Apostolicism? That is, are you referring specifically to literature written as a form of "evangelism"?
It's a valid question, I think, because as an Apostolic, who has aspirations of someday publishing, I'd hate to think that any character that I create, in anything I happen to write, would be taken as a representation of Apostolics as a whole.
Let me ask you: how much (if any) popular fiction do you read? How many of those writers are Catholics, or Presbyterians, or agnostics or athiests? I haven't the slightest idea; nor do I care. And their writing doesn't reflect on their chosen religious movement at all-because in my mind, it's not a factor.
I suspect, though, that your post is more about "Christian Fiction" written by Apostolics than it is fiction in general. And I certainly understand the point; as an Apostolic, writing "Christian Fiction" I would obviously want to be cognizant of the fact that Christian readers everywhere will be viewing my writing critically, and applying the characteristics exhibeted in my writings to Apostolics as a whole.
But, as I read this post, I found myself asking, "why bother"? And it's an honest question-not a soapbox. I have no point here, other than to try to elicit a real, thought out, response to my question: why bother writing "Christian Fiction," (as opposed to general fiction).
What's the point? Perhaps it's because, as Christians, we feel that everything we do should be oriented around changing people, thus we write fiction with a purpose. Or maybe it's because we feel that unless we pander to the tastes of the masses (that is, content that's morally inappropriate-be it language, lewd scenes, or ungodly lifestyles), our fiction won't sell to the general population. Maybe it's something completely different, or some combination of the above.
My question is this: is it OK, as an Apostolic writer, to write general fiction (not "Christian Fiction") that doesn't, in the writing, conflict with my fundamental beliefs? Further, is it OK to write fiction for fiction's sake? Or need it, since I AM an Apostolic, have evangelistic overtones?
Those are honest questions, and I'm interested in real answers.
I am a big fan of Chaim Potok's books, most of which are fictional stories that generally deal with the coming of age of the characters and a crisis of faith of some kind from a Jewish perspective. The fact that they get read by a large audience speaks to their broad appeal outside the Jewish faith. Quite simply, they are good stories in their own right. Although a couple of his books are now out of print, most of them have staying power such as "The Chosen" which I think was originally published in 1967, and is still in print 40 years later.
My concern with “apostolic fiction” would be an inaccurate portrayal of apostolic characters in the interest of presenting a positive face to the world. Apostolic people have struggles like anyone else; they suffer; some sin big time; some crash and burn; and they have their victories. If this could be portrayed the way Potok crafts his stories I think the “outside” world would pay attention and learn how apostolic people use their faith to navigate the pitfalls of life.
Basically, good writing gets attention regardless of who is writing it.
The question of apostolic identity is an interesting one. For instance how does anyone decide just what is apostolic identity? Or, who is qualified to define apostolic identity for all apostolics? If someone portrays apostolics in their writing in a particular way, and upon reading that I think to myself, “Hmm… that’s not my apostolic experience,” does that make one or the other of us right or wrong? Is it either/or or can it be and/because? With the amount of variation among apostolic organizations (or even within one, such as the UPCI), or the numerous independents that exist, is it possible to have a firm apostolic identity? Is the UPCI identity representative of apostolics as a whole?
In the above post the Jewish faith is mentioned. Yet there are several variations of the Jewish faith, and then there is the whole question of Jews as a people independent of their faith. There are Jewish atheists (I have personally met one who was a former English professor at a college in New York). Does Jewish identity take all of this into account? Or maybe their diversity is their identity? They have been known to attack their own (as have apostolics) if they felt they were in error. The Hasidic Jewish rabbi is unlikely to have much in common with a Reformed Jewish rabbi, other than ancestry.
Anyway, you pose an interesting issue worthy of much discussion.
Is Potok the spokesman for Judaism? How about Wiesel? Steinberg? Mailer? Asimov? Not to mention the notable number of Jewish women writers? Asimov was a scientist and an atheist; Potok a rabbi; Wiesel an academic who struggles with faith… All were/are writers.
Do Merton and Nouwen speak for all Catholics (whoops, only the Pope does that)?
Who is the current voice of apostolic fiction? Do they speak for all apostolics? Are they accurately portraying apostolic identity?
Wow Lee Ann! This is a tough one. You should write a cover article for 90 & 9 on apostolic identity.
You raise a very good point, Lee Ann.
I realize I’m not referencing print fiction here, but bear with me.
One day, Catholics are not going to be the go-to template for the entertainment equivalent of Christianity. Granted, they're rarely portrayed more flawed or more enigmatic than they really are (in my opinion). Priests that are portrayed smoking, drinking, and cussing aren’t really something that conflicts with much of reality. The Catholic Church as a whole spends a lot of energy re-defining sin. And sinners know it.
That is why Hollywood cannot contain themselves when they decide to portray what is, at least one subset of the “cloistered” life that seems to be truly eschewing worldliness: The Amish. Not only used as comic foils, every single cinematic portrayal of them goes along these lines:
1) Amish community suffers an inter-community injustice or crime.
2) Perky, short-haired alpha-chick with a badge rides in to not only investigate, but to do it while riding on her elevated palomino of feminist arrogance.
3) Perky badge-wielder moves in with Amish family to “saturate herself.”
4) Perky badge-flinger starts convincing Amish wife that she’s a slave to tradition, all the while eating her biscuits.
5) Perky pantsuit-cop is shown to be the only one noticing that the family’s teenage daughter has hormones.
6) Perky peace-officer finds out daughter is pregnant, makes some veiled reference to abortion rights.
7) Local elders resent perky cop, hold town meeting at church denouncing the precocious, PHD-wielding pantaloon promoter.
8) Case solved just as town elders start to form admonition mob; credit goes to alpha-chick.
9) Departure conversation with Amish elders exposes admissions from both sides that they are scared of what they don’t understand.
10) Amish elder makes final, humorous acknowledgement, using a strategically-placed F-word.
11) Alpha chick’s jaw drops, smacks elder on back, and laughs with larger group like drunken sailors as the credits roll.
My point being this. One day, we will be the template (or, if the world continues to pollute the American apostolic church, maybe we won’t). If we don’t define ourselves, someone else will be glad to do it for us.
To my mind, the Mormons have done a good job at damage control, by getting out in front of what could (in the advent of a Mitt Romney GOP front-runnership) be a deluge.
Sorry I ran long.
-R
I'm loving this conversation.
I think the question of Apostolic identity is kind of tricky because I don't think it is very well-defined by those who are Apostolic. Or maybe it's not a matter of it not being well-defined but a matter of it being so diverse because of so much variation, even within organizations, as the anonymous commenter mentioned.
I don't think the focus should be on "positive" or "effective" portrayal. I, in many ways, second the questions and doubt as the very first commmenter. I think the reason why we're so concerned about portrayals of A/P identity in writing is because there are extrememely few, if ANY portrayals of A/P identity in writing out there at all. But if there were to be, I would certainly be comfortable saying that THAT portrayal wouldn't represent A/P identity as a whole, just as Potok's writing doesn't represent Jewish identity as a whole.
And, as an aside to Ron, I really feel badly saying this because it seems like everytime I leave a comment on one of your posts, it seems like I'm being critical and I hate seeming like that because I don't mean to be, but when you said "The Catholic Church as a whole spends a lot of energy re-defining sin," it made me cringe. I just think it's a bad idea to make a judgement call on an entire organization based on a sweeping generalization. What if someone had said, "The UPCI as a whole spends a lot of time condemning everyone who isn't a part of their organization"? It would make me cringe just as much.
This post has been removed by the author.
No big deal, but I would have loved to see you "take a position" on the gay marriage thing over on the front page, instead of playing "devil's advocate." But I guess someone's got to draw fire here.
Anyway, I can amend my statements to mean "The Vatican." The apex around which religious corruption revolves.
-R
One key issue of our identity revolves around the "we're not" response: We're not Trinitarians. We're not immodest. We're not going to movies. We're not... It's hard to know what to highlight in our stories/fiction when we identify ourselves so often by negatives.
Wow, that is so true. In a way it seems sad that our identity revolves around negatives.
But maybe this could be fodder for A/P lit. Maybe instead of focusing on presenting a well-defined face for the world at large, we could write about that struggle. The struggle of trying to forge a substantive identity in the face of self-identifying many times by what "we're not."
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
I personally get tired of defining our selves by all the “negatives” too, especially when they’re not negatives. I think instead of being on the defensive all the time maybe we should come back with an incredulous, “You mean you don’t live this way? This is the best life I have ever had! Let me tell you about it…”
I don’t worry about STD’s or keeping up with the latest fashions. I don’t fill my mind with the junk (for the most part) that spews out of Hollywood; I’m raising my children without the influence of TV and all the older ones are advanced readers (and I’m talking about literature with the oldest, not prairie romances — they are also voracious readers of history); I’m not worried about other men lusting after my wife because she dresses modestly. I have the antidote for relativism and postmodern philosophy that turns people into wishy-washy intolerant mimics who have most of their thinking done by others.
In other words, I choose to live this way; I like my lifestyle; I really don’t care if you (I speak generally) don’t like it because I’m not trying to please you. People are welcome to choose the lifestyle they think is best for them. At the risk of appearing judgmental to the less discerning (which I don’t think read this blog anyway) I live my life this way for much the same reasons that Francis Schaeffer wrote about in his book “True Spirituality.”
Maybe a good way to begin on apostolic identity is to have some fiction that portrays apostolic lifestyle as something to greatly be desired. When I read Potok’s books I was impressed with the lifestyles of the Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, and I was especially impressed with their commitment to study and their faith — from a young age through old age.
If we always define ourselves by the negative, than that is how people perceive us. It also puts us on the defensive when we should be on the offensive. I don’t find Hasidic Jews, Amish, Mennonites, or going to the other end of the spectrum, those people who are not influenced by religion but choose different lifestyles such as living in an extended community (with rules), living as vegetarians (or any other “eccentric” lifestyle by the mainstream world’s standards), apologizing for the way they live. Sorry for the run-on sentence to all you English majors and grammar freaks out there.
I don’t mean we need to paint a rosy picture about how apostolics never struggle because they don’t watch TV (although a fair amount do nowadays — hopefully not stuff like “Desperate Housewives”), dress modestly, go to church three times a week, and eschew worldliness. I think a realistic picture of the joys and sorrows of living for God as an apostolic. And why are there never pictures of overweight women and men (with pimples) on the covers of the romance novels?
And puh-leaze…, if someone out there in blogger land is not among the discerning, don’t turn this comment section into an argument about how “judgmental” apostolics are, how they all live in legalism, and how their “identity” wouldn’t affect a rock out in the church parking lot. Save that for your own blog. That is not what we are discussing here and I’ve heard those arguments ad nauseam. I’m not going to convince you and you won’t convince me, so let’s focus on the task-at-hand — defining apostolic identity which is far more than lifestyle but includes our lifestyle.
Kent, I appreciated your comment on focusing on the negative. Until we get over ourselves - quit defending ourselves and what we believe, then we'll never accomplish many functions of the church.
Steve you made a good point, too - instead of "being on the defensive," I have always found that if we are honest about our spirituality AND our humanity, we are much more believable and acceptable. I have, for years, tried to talk to my former athiest, now who-knows-what, cousin about what I believe. He doesn't believe the Bible is God's word, so what do you say? I finally just told him, look, I get it that we have this huge disconnect, but my life is the result of following that Book - it works, I'm living proof. No need to defend or get angry, just be honest.
Okay, I've taken a rabbit trail, and restated what everyone else has said, but I think THIS is how we should write - without defensiveness. Hey folks, we have the truth - how easily we forget!
I wonder if the reason this discussion touches a nerve is because as Apostolics in the 21st century we're not really sure what our identity is.
We knew who we were in the 1950's through the 1980's. We began to wonder who we were in the 1990's, and now we have some serious questions as to just what makes an apostolic an apostolic.
Maybe we're having an identity crisis.
Wow… First of all, thank you all for your comments. When I posted, I never anticipated this much discourse. However, I think it is this discourse which helps us begin to understand the complexities of Apostolic identity.
If you look back at the original post and then work your way through the comments, you’ll see we’ve actually brought up quite a wide range of issues. My initial thesis was simply that we have the opportunity to write fiction that reflects our faith, but that we must be cognizant that it will be the face of Apostolicdom for many readers. Yet I see from the comments, that this touches the deeper issue: identifying who we really are as a movement. I offer no concise label. Yet I think via this forum and the dialogue of thinking Christians, we are on our way to better understanding our identity--or at least figuring out how to approach its study.
P.J. – I was glad you questioned the distinction about “Apostolic fiction” and why we feel the need to evangelize in our writing. This brings up a point raised in a discussion I attended two weeks ago on breaking into the world of fiction as an Apostolic. Someone expressed frustration at the thought that he had to wear his religion on his sleeve as a writer. He wanted to just write a story about [insert topic of your choice unrelated to religion] just because that is his interest. His point was that he shouldn’t be forced to make every story about an Apostolic theme or related to conversion simply because he is Apostolic. I understand the reasoning, and I think that’s a legitimate perspective. Our attempt to write quality fiction as Apostolic writers doesn’t necessarily have to be driven by a desire to evangelize. We need good writers (who happen to be Apostolic) just like we need good attorneys, waitresses, physicians, mechanics, etc. (who happen to be Apostolic).
But I think we should have some writers who choose to use fiction as a vehicle for presenting our faith to a readership that might not otherwise encounter it. Now does that mean every short story we ever write must include a conversion scene or a character just happening to pick up a Bible which happens to flip open to Acts 2:38? Not necessarily. My opinion is that our Apostolic identity will inherently bleed through our work, even if the work is not overtly about religion. I’m not talking about a hocus-pocus “a force pulled at me when I picked up your book” moment (although, what if? Wouldn’t that be amazing?). But even in a work of fiction not overtly about our conversion experience, shouldn’t something in it reflect our identity or something about us that could positively impact our readers? If fiction is the work of creating an almost tangible world of characters with unique identities, if we could present our faith in that newly created world, why not? As Steve pointed out, good quality writing will get attention. Why not have quality fiction out there by Apostolics (no matter how overtly religious in content) which happens to present our faith?
To steal a theme from Kent Curry’s Keynote Address at The Forum, this decade is about pioneering ministries in the creative arts. I believe that writing quality literature is one of those arts. But this will require us to understand who we are so we can effectively portray it.
Lee Ann, you wrote:
"To steal a theme from Kent Curry’s Keynote Address at The Forum, this decade is about pioneering ministries in the creative arts. I believe that writing quality literature is one of those arts. But this will require us to understand who we are so we can effectively portray it."
My answer:
I think a discussion about apostolicism and the arts (music, writing, theatre, drawing, painting, etc.) would be a GREAT idea. As so often happens in art it helps to identify who we are from a variety of perspectives.
I’ve been on Kent about this for months but I’ll offer it up for the wider blogosphere readership: If someone hasn’t read "My Name is Asher Lev", by Chaim Potok (yes, I do read other authors for those of you who are wondering :)), it is a great story about a gifted Hasidic artist in a culture that doesn’t appreciate art at the very least, and on the extreme end considers it to be going against the “graven image” prohibition of the Law of Moses.
The reason I recommend this book is I suspect any forays into the art world (with all that encompasses), by apostolics, is likely to be met with some resistance, or even outright hostility, in some cases. For example, a fictional book that portrays some of the apostolic characters as living double-lives, or questioning their faith, having marital problems, or even leaving to attend another denomination, et al. might not be warmly received in some circles, especially if the book doesn't "resolve" those conflicts in the end. A theatre production that included dance might not be warmly received either. Could an apostolic artist paint pictures of nudes (a legitimate art form) without catching heat? I personally know one preacher’s wife who took an art course and painted nudes much to her husband’s consternation. And I could keep citing examples but you can fill in the blanks with your own. I won’t identify him in this blog, but I have a friend who wrote a book that doesn’t conform to the “traditional apostolic paradigm” which on former district superintendent called “The most dangerous book in all of Pentecost.”
So anyway, as art meets a rather rigid religious culture what do you think the response would be?
I'm waiting (perhaps on me) to write some Flannery O'Connor style Ap writing where Aps are the true and others are the deviants. Any takers???
Post a Comment
<< Home