The distributor?
The words?
The attitude of the artist's heart and his or her faith?
Was DC Talk Christian and Bruce Cockburn not?
Now I ask the same thing of Christian comics. What makes them Christian?
Is it that they're advertised and marketed as such?
Is it that they're published by Christian publishers?
Is it that they're blatantly evangelistic?
Or can mainstream comics written by Christians like Chuck Dixon and Roland Mann be included?
It is the attitude of the writer and/or artist's heart and faith?
I figure that this group, if any, would be able to help hammer this out.
Personally, I'm a bit more liberal in my definition. (I must be to write for the Gene Simmons line at IDW, right, and particularly to write a book called Gene Simmons Dominatrix, or to be hard at work on so many horror-tinged books at the moment.)
But I feel that almost any story, no matter the language or content (to a large degree) can be a story of redemption. Taking my cues from the Bible, it seems that almost no subject is taboo, from revenge, bloody wars, genocide, sex, incest, you name it. It's all in there, and I'm hoping that gives us earthly creators a grace-filled free reign to tackle almost any subject redemptively. I guess that's my definition at the heart. If it's a genuine redemptive story, it can be called a Christian one, because that's what Christ came to do, redeem.
But feel free to differ.
Comments
I found this very interesting but I'd like to point out a few things you should really consider.
1. You call for a direct approach because that is the only effective method. This does two things. First it ignores that much of Christ's teaching was parable. It implies that there is one method all the time. You cite Paul as that example. But Paul wasn't "always in your face." Paul spoke in a highly contextual manner although it was always truth he preached.
2. You say here that "you can not win people to the Lord without offending them." I'm sorry, but you can't win people to the Lord - period.
No Christian can bring someone else to the Lord. Our mission has less to do with accomplishing salvation because we have no power to save. Our mission has more to do with faithful obedience to God and love for man that leads to the constant expression of the Gospel in our lives and from our mouths. We preach because we are told to but it is only to His glory that anyone is saved. None has any part in salvation than the author of our faith.
3. Your "hat" should ALWAYS be on. We can live a life that is always Christian in content. Because anything we do we can do the glory of the Lord. That isn't always preaching or putting Christ's face on a product. Consider Bach:
He composed music that is practically unsurmountable. Every sonata and fugue is of the utmost quality. Keep in mind that his 9-5 was writing cantata's for church every Sunday. Probably also one of the most prolific composers in history. But his music had something different. Even the calligraphy was painstakingly drawn. But what made him different than his contemporaries was that instead of the name of the church written at the bottom of each tabulature, these words were written: For the Glory of God.
Every piece. It was never for his glory, and during his time, he had none. It was for the Glory of God. He gave his best to the Lord and those words are common on the tongues of historians who discuss his work. Everyone knows what he stood for.
That is what the Lord wants from your work, regardless of what it is. Your best for His glory.
But let me say this about your essay. I love your willingness to portray the message. The Lord is proud of men like you.
Greg
p.s.
Can somebody draw Christ with a Galilean beard. It is like the one detail we actually know about what he looks like. Other than that his appearance wasn't as attractive.
The definition is difficult because we have hard bought freedom from the Son of Man.
As man we naturally drift towards definite rules, for what reason I don't know. It is has virtually destroyed every aspect of beauty on this planet, we have to tame EVERYTHING. What is right and what is wrong is important but we waste so much time on absolute right and absolute wrong that we rarely reflect God's model of righteousness: what He does is what is right.
It is frustrating because we want it to be spelled out for us. However, it like the freedom He bought us assures nothing because for every problem there is a different solution.
In 1 Corinthians Paul basically explains further that for some men eating meat sacrificed to idols was sinful (because those men believed a spiritual connection to exist between the meat and the idols) but to others (who just liked meat and truly believed in one God, it wasn't).
There is only one rule that is implied and often missed by most believers: it is sinful to encourage sinfulness in other men, even indirectly.
I.e. if my father is an alcoholic, I'm not ordering a drink in front of him. Regardless of my religious freedom to do so.
So to answer your question: nothing is "Christian" except believers, and anything we create is "but rags compared to the glory of the Lord."
There is only what is acceptable and unacceptable. If anything anyone does can (in an extreme and outright manner since we are so easily prone to sin) encourage sinfulness, such as nudity, I really don't think it is defensible as "acceptable" material.
Violence is defensibly acceptable because the Lord acted violently in appropriate times, we have to follow His example.
I really think it is a tool of the enemy to engage man in creating non-existant boundries that can really hinder his ability to follow the Lord.
If your in to Metal and love the Lord, this dynamic is ALL TO PRESENT.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next