In a recent conversation, a reader explained to me that Christian writing should not have any graphic sin, because the images might stay in someone’s mind and that person may become disturbed.And with this theory rolling around in my mind I sat down to read my morning Bible passage. (I am working my way through a yearly reading plan—though I was skeptical of at first, I now see many benefits.)One of the passages was assigned was Judges chapters 19 – 21.If you’ve got a minute, click on over and read it yourself.Needless to say, I did spend my day feeling disturbed, but I can only conclude that there are times when God asks us, even needs us to feel disturbed and disgusted.
I do not doubt that God wants us to be disturbed as opposed to acclimated to the fallen conditions of our worldI do not doubt that God often disturbs us to prevent us from becoming too acclimated to our fallen world. When I read through the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, I find stories, images, and ideas that are disturbing, things that I am tempted to explain away or gloss over. I don’t, however, because I sense I am supposed to be disturbed, that
being disturbed can become my opportunity to wrestle with an angel and thereby establish
a deeper more genuine faith.
As far the question regarding how graphic should writers let their writing be in order to
disturb an audience, I don’t think there are clear, inviolable aesthetic nor moral laws
that can be drawn. It did strike me, however, that even in the passages in Judges were
not particularly graphic. Sure, it did not hold punches in dealing with dark subject
matter, and it did directly state what actions the various characters committed. And yet,
when it came to actually providing details to describe these actions, the writing was a
bit muted. For example, the passage when the Levite divided his dead concubine into
twelve pieces merely stated that he committed this action. It did not provide a more
graphic narrative such as “The Levite having placed the dead, rigid body of his concubine
on the floor of his house, took his knife and pressed it against her graying flesh. He
hesitated and then pushed, and though there was initial resistance the sharpened knife
easily cut into her, dividing sinews, muscle and various organs. Years of serving in the
temple, assisting the priests in preparing animal sacrifices had prepared him for the
copious amounts of blood that flowed from her onto the stone floor. He also new how to
sever bodies so as to avoid the grueling endeavor of hacking through bone.” This is
certainly more graphic than the original passage, and probably more disturbing, but is it too disturbing? What if I was to take this level of graphic detail and describe how the
twisted men of Gibeah ravished the concubine? Would this narrative thereby take a turn
toward pornography? Would it go beyond disturbing people out of moral complacency and
actually have the opposite effect of stirring up lust?
I think your question is a good question, but its virtue is not necessarily in the
answers we might provide (as good as that may be). Rather it is a question that calls
writers, again and again, to be conscientious about their craft and consider if the
effects of their writing will actually match their purpose.
some of Ezekiel borders on (even crosses the border) pornography - particularly chapters 16 and 23 - nipple fondling - donkey ejaculations and shameful whorings abound
and this is scripture.
jewish rabbis insisted that anyone under the age of 30 should not be allowed to read these passages.
We seem to have this conversation all the time with people, and maybe we just have to live with that for a while. I just wanted to acknowledge Anthony's comment for thoughtfully engaging Kim's question. I would point out that the issue of graphicness in ancient texts, as in contemporary ones, has much to do with the rhetorical context, i.e. the author's purpose, message and audience. Hence Anthony's closing thought, that writer's should "be conscientious about their craft and consider if the effects of their writing will actually match their purpose" strikes me as pretty right on. As readers, too, we ought to judge the work on what it does and the kind of audience it appeals to. We then have to decide whether we want to be a part of that audience or not.
