A Christian Perspective on Authorial Responsibility

Note that the subject heading reads "a Christian perspective" and not "the Christian perspective." I figure there's at the very least two billion different Christian perspectives on any given subject. However, the authorial responsibility discussion (once again, cf. metafandom) has already produced response on authorial responsibility from explicitly religious positions, both Buddhist and Wiccan Feri. Since I enjoy talking about religion in this journal, I thought I might discuss, as much for my own benefit as anyone else's, how my Christian faith informs my position in the discussion. While I'll use phrases like "Christianity teaches..." I don't claim that Christianity is a stable thing or that "it" teaches the same things to all people; know that my meaning is actually much closer to "According to my interpretation of Christianity...." Of course, Christianity is probably much better known in the English-speaking world than Buddhism or Wicca (eta: or Feri), so a lot of this might seem old hat, but I'll say it anyway. (Also, for those already familiar with my theological moves, I'll be speaking mostly from "within the metaphor.")

All that said, Christianity teaches that words are incredibly powerful things, so much so that Jesus Christ is himself referred to as the Word of God. St. John famously opens his gospel with "In the beginning was the Word [logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was [a] God," deliberately echoing the writers of the Pentateuch which begins:

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw how good the light was. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day. [Gn 1:1-5, NAB]

The very act of creation is presented as a verbal command, followed by an act of naming. Christians turn to words, to language for a metaphor for divine power because we recognize the potential power inherent in words. As an Episcopalian, I believe in consubstantiation, that words spoken by a priest can make bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. When I recite the words of the "Our Father"--words given to us by Jesus himself--and those set down by the Council of Nicea in the Creed (not to mention the rest of the mass, really), I am reaffirming my connection with two millenia of Christians. Words are heavy things to Christians.

Okay, but so far we've just been talking about words in general. No one's been denying that words can teach and instruct and persuade and obfuscate and be powerful. It's fiction that the debate is over. That's just made-up stories, right--nothing like divine commands or a metaphor for a person of the Trinity.

The Bible itself in many (some would say most) places composed of fiction; I think even most Biblical "literalists" accept the Song of Solomon as love poetry and not a documented account of actual love affairs in history. It's the rare Christian who would use "It's just fiction!" as an excuse to ignore those parts of Holy Writ entirely. 

But Jesus himself also used fiction to teach, famously--and not all the stories he told are pretty. The Parable of the Good Samaritan [Lk. 25-37] is, essentially, hurt/comfort, no? The Parable of the Rich Fool [Lk 12:16-21] is deathfic. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant [Mt 18:21-35] involves torture (which is treated as justified within the world of the parable).

But it might be argued, that despite taking on these topics, Jesus was being "responsible" about them. After all, the above parables are all, essentially, morality tales--they use their macabre subjects to teach lessons about how we should live our lives. And that's true, of course. Jesus did indeed preach God's law according to the mandates of the Father. But it must be remember that not everyone who heard Jesus recite his parables had the context to understand them. All three of the synoptic gospel writers (St. Mark, St. Matthew, and St. Luke) make a particular point of this fact in the Parable of the Sower (Mt 13:1-23, Mk 4:1-20, Lk 8.4-15), which must be explained for the disciples away from the crowd. All three evangelists go on to quote (the Greek translation of) Isaiah:

Listen carefully, but you shall not understand! Look intently, but you shall know nothing! [Is 6:9, NAB]

Many times it was only his inner circle of disciples who had that necessary context to understand what Jesus was saying. (Sometimes even they didn't understand.) Within the community, he could be understood to be responsible, but outside that inner circle his words would be reviled and misconstrued. (Can you see the parallel I'm drawing here?)

Jesus knew his stories would be heard by those who did not have the context to understand them, and would be misinterpreted by them--and he was okay with that. He knew he couldn't (well, he could, I suppose, being God and everything, but he wouldn't) control  how every person would understand what he said, but it was important nonetheless to preach for the benefit of those who could understand. And maybe, just maybe, some of those people who lacked the context to understand would be driven to find out that context, and be transformed.

The Bible itself is filled with rape, incest, genocide, slavery--you name it, it's probably in there, sometimes described in glowing terms. And God knows that atrocities have been committed based on what is found within that book. Christians believe, however, that with the grace of God received through the Holy Spirit, we can become responsible readers with the wisdom to be able to use these stories to inspire us to good rather than evil works in his name. Why wouldn't the same be true of fanfiction?

[Yes, I just wrote a Christian defense of incest fic. I love religion.]