Listening and understanding

P.G. Wodehouse once wrote that the best sales promotion for any book is to get it condemned by a bishop (a truth for which the estate of D.H. Lawrence is still immensely grateful). But I confess I was saddened by the response of some readers to my review of Ben Elton's Popcorn.

One published letter, and several unpublished, described my contribution as 'garbage', a 'slide into the depths of pornography', 'gibberish' and 'utterly unacceptable and spiritually dangerous.' I found it rather daunting, as a reader of Evangelicals Now and its predecessor for some 18 years, to be categorised as 'Mr. Porter and his ilk'.

I can't speak on behalf of my ilk, but let me respond to some of the issues that have been raised.

Let me first reassure the reader who asked how much time I spend reading books and seeing plays in which 'the f-word is scattered liberally and coarseness and obscenities are plentiful'. The answer is, 'Hardly any'. I read Popcorn because the editor asked me to. He believed (and so do I) that readers should be aware of this important statement; that some of us should be encouraged to untangle its complex moral arguments, catching as they do the mood of our times which we desperately need to understand if we are to communicate to those outside the church. I didn't enjoy the bad language at all, and although the book is cleverly written it is nowhere near the masterpiece that John Updike's book In the Beauty of the Lilies is, which I recently reviewed. I'm afraid that readers who thought I was saying that Elton's book is a thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining read for everybody weren't really paying attention.

Francis Schaeffer

Why then mention it at all? Rather than repeat the three reasons I gave in my review, let me mention the classic argument of Francis Schaeffer, who, when asked after a lecture on Henry Miller, 'But are you saying that we've all got to read these dirty books?', replied, 'No; but some of you have got to'.

Another (reverend) reader found abhorrent my 'amazing and alarming suggestion' that 'Christians should be aware of any book that's a best-seller and deals with ideas'. But how can we not be, if we are to engage with the world at all? I didn't say we should all read them. I doubt if I shall ever read Michael Drosnin's The Bible Code, but it's my duty to be aware of it. Hundreds of thousands of people are forming a view of Scripture according to that book. Surely it's worth an hour to read a Time review of it, to become aware of it, to know the outline of what other pseudo-biblical interpretations the non-Christians I meet may be exposed to?

John Stott pleaded powerfully in The Contemporary Christian: 'The contemporary world is positively reverberating with cries of anger, frustration and pain. Too often, however, we turn a deaf ear to these anguished cries . . . our evangelical habit with such is to rush in with the gospel, to climb on to our soapbox, and to declaim our message with little regard for the cultural situation or the felt needs of the people concerned ... the better way is to listen before we speak, to seek to enter into the other person's world of thought and feeling, to struggle to grasp what their objections to the gospel may be, and so to share with them the good news of Jesus Christ in a way that speaks to their need.'

Separation

Some Christians argue strongly that separation is all-important; that we should let a few select Christians read books like Popcorn and take our opinions from what they say, while we remain untouched by secular thinking. I can't agree. It's too big a burden to lay on other Christians - not that of reading Popcorn, but of providing a biblically accurate exposition of it for the church at large. Christians who are involved in teaching young people; whose work involves making sense of the contemporary world; Christians in the pulpit and some, not all (and perhaps not many) of the Christians in the pew - all need to listen, to read, to watch carefully. And, where the image of God burns bright in some non-Christian artists and writers, to enjoy and to treasure.

Remember The Last Temptation of Christ? When youth leaders armed with A4 handouts from Christian organisations - which often misunderstood and misrepresented the film - tried to explain why people should abhor and condemn a film that they themselves (and often the authors of the handouts) had never seen?

The truth

Philippians 4.8 is often quoted as justification that 'loveliness' should be the pursuit of every Christian. But Paul, as Calvin emphasises, puts truth first. A novel like Popcorn can contain more truth - and does - than any number of saccharine Christian novels of the type with which Christian publishing is awash. Loveliness without truth is no longer lovely, however comfortable it may make us feel. It has nothing to say to a bleeding and despairing world - and it has nothing of value to say to us.

Let me add a final thought. Many years ago a book was published in the evangelical world that was written out of a burning desire to reach young people for Christ, and a deep unhappiness with the modern rock culture. It put together a damning indictment of rock music, well-researched and passionately argued. But it had a serious flaw. It gave no indication of any understanding of the love that young people have for rock music. It offered no explanation (except idolatry) for the worldwide grieving that the deaths of Jim Morrison, Elvis Presley, Freddie Mercury and others provoked. It seemed to have little understanding of quality - the difference between Top of the Pops and Jools Hollands' Later would have passed the author by. The book was all description and prescription, but rock music moves the heart, not the brain. As Schaeffer said, 'If we don't listen, we won't understand.'

I remember a day conference of the Grace Baptist Women's Association where I was kindly invited to be the speaker. Around 150 of us grappled with issues like these for a whole day. I think of the EN reader who is arranging conferences on the arts in Reformed churches, because he has a passionate desire to initiate discussion on these matters. I think of the great heritage of Francis Schaeffer and Hans Rookmaaker, and the strong presence of L'Abri in EN. Having an arts column places us firmly in the great tradition of the Reformed faith. We even, in my opinion, have our modern-day Christian inheritors of at least part of the mantle of Rembrandt, Bunyan, Bach and other great Reformation artists.

But we can't do it in a vacuum, without reference to the hurting world. If we are to be lights in the darkness, we mustn't huddle in our own patch, floodlit and secure. Otherwise we will be taking the gospel of Jesus to minister not to needs that people have, but needs we think they ought to have. Of course, I'm not telling you to read Popcorn as your leisure reading on the beach this summer. But some of us will have to tackle it if we are to know on what terms our gospel is rejected by so many in this world.

Forgive me if I talk plainly. After 18 years, we are no longer strangers. It is a privilege to write in these pages each month. I consider you my ilk.

Listening and understanding

The necessity of Christians to be aware of current secular thinking

Francis Schaeffer

Separation

The truth

David Porter

Main Articles

Other articles