Writing in a Christian voice

Overdoing it is worse than underdoing it.

This isn't a complete answer, but remember that Christians are, before anything else, people. Yes, they might see the world differently, but then again, not that differently. It is way more off-putting to overdo the difference than to under-do it. Consider this example from Donna Leon's The Death of Faith:

‘And you’re the gardener?’ Brunetti asked, though it was hardly necessary.

‘By the goodness of God, I am that. I’ve worked in this garden,’ he began, giving Brunetti a closer look, ‘since the time you were a boy.’

‘It’s beautiful, Brother. You should be proud of it.’

The old man gave Brunetti a sudden look from under his thick eyebrows. Pride was, after all, one of the seven deadly sins. ‘Proud that beauty like this gives glory to God, that is,’ Brunetti amended, and the monk’s smile was restored.

Now, (spoiler alert), this monk later turns out to be a religious fanatic. But that doesn't take away the point that no Christian, monk or not, religious fanatic or not, that I have ever met (and I know some very religious people), has ever talked that way. If you read this, not only it feels obvious that Donna Leon has never talked to an actual monk in her life, it also makes it seem as if she thinks monks are some weird kinds of aliens that don't use the same words or have the same feelings as other people.

Don't write like this.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

sgf‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0

Growing up in Israel, I am surrounded by Jews. Interacting with Christian acquaintances, and reading literature written by religious Christians, there are a few things I noticed - things that stood out to me as not being what is to me "the norm". (This is not an exhaustive study. Those are broad generalisations based on relatively limited personal experience.)

Faith is understood differently by Jews and Christians. That is, being a "good Christian" is different from being a "good Jew" not only in the technical rules one follows (Kashrut etc.) but in how one thinks of the whole thing.

Consider Tevye the Dairyman, especially the way he is presented in Fiddler on the Roof. He is in constant dialogue with God: "Would it spoil some vast eternal plan, if I were a wealthy man?" He is not a "bad Jew" for asking questions. In fact, we admire Abraham and Moses for arguing with God, for taking a moral stand.
We argue with God, we also argue about how we should follow God's commandments. The Gemara is all discussions and arguments, and of course it doesn't stop there. Our belief tends to the logical rather than the mystical. Consider how the Rambam explains why rules make sense, and how they make sense. We always ask why. We have a cultural respect for knowledge, for study, and because of that - for science. Rambam wrote at length about it, at the same time as Christian monasteries were not at all keen on the idea.

For Christians, as I understand it, questioning God is not a good way to behave. One is supposed to meekly accept, bow, obey, "have faith". Look at The Lord of the Rings, a profoundly Christian work: compare Aragorn (good) to Boromir (bad). Boromir doesn't stop questioning Gandalf's decisions - he uses his own head, he wants explanations, he wants to have it logically proven to him that their course is the right one. Aragorn, on the other hand, questions nothing and trusts Gandalf.

'But do not you know the word, Gandalf?' asked Boromir in surprise.
'No!' said the wizard.
The others looked dismayed; only Aragorn, who knew Gandalf well, remained silent and unmoved.
'Then what was the use of bringing us to this accursed spot?' cried Boromir (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, book 2, chapter 4 - A Journey in the Dark)

(This is one of multiple examples that form a pattern.)

Another important element: Judaism is very understanding and accepting of humans being humans. We are not expected to be saints - we are expected to make mistakes. It is understood. We do not seek absolute perfection, in fact we treat it with suspicion - it just can't be. In Christianity, the whole thing with confession etc. - the philosophy blames each and every human for each and every mistake. They've sinned, they're bad, they're undeserving of heaven...

Which brings us to the different attitude to this life and the next. Christian theology is very focused on Heaven and Hell, and avoiding the latter. This life is a "corridor" on the way to the next, and you must work very hard to end up in the right place. For Jews, all the focus is on this life. The afterlife is barely touched on, and there are so many varied opinions on it in the various sources, that consensus appears to be "when we get there, we'll find out". Hell is rather a foreign concept to us.

The thing about those core philosophies is, you can reject religion entirely, and yet your understanding of what being religious means would still be coloured by that religion you rejected. Or, one might think of oneself as "bad Christian" or "bad Jew", and those would be reflections of their perception of "good Christian/Jew". Whether your Christian character is religious, or not at all, she would still have this understanding.

If Pam suspects God is involved in what Ruth is experiencing, I would imagine her reaction would turn to fear and awe rather than to curiosity, and she might be more passive - accepting the experience rather than trying to figure out what God is trying to say. At least, that's my understanding of it all.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Galastel‭

1885 reputation 81 551 319 3

Christianity is enormously broad and most Christians know little about it.

Christianity is so broad that unless your character is meant to hold a special position within a specific Church that it is hard to write in the wrong voice. There are people that call themselves Christian that hold an enormously broad system of beliefs. Even merely looking at the major groupings The Catholic Church holds very different beliefs from the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints who in turn have marked differences from the Southern Baptists (the largest Protestant denomination in the US) who are markedly different from the Greek Orthodox Church. They all will call themselves Christian.

And those are just looking at the reasonably mainstream groupings. There are numerous smaller denominations and even cults that call themselves Christian with an enormous variety of beliefs, some of which could be considered so far beyond the pale that more mainstream Christians may deny that those small denominations are Christians at all.

Also, most adherents choose their church based on convenience rather than carefully scrutinizing the beliefs of their church, and even the ones that carefully scrutinize the doctrine may elect to ignore some minor differences in choosing their church. I am an active believer (though a bad one) and I attend a church (occasionally) where I have minor but genuine disagreements with my pastor.

With this enormous variety, you almost have to actively try to write in a voice that is clearly and absolutely non-Christian. It would be hard to even say that a statement that most Christians would vociferously deny is even truly outside a Christian voice. A plausible argument could be made that the Baha'i Faith is a type of Christianity for instance and they also believe that Muhammad was a prophet.

Also, most Christians do not know much about their faith. Many Christians do not know what transubstantiation is, much less have an opinion about it.

In short, many people may disagree on whether something is in a Christian voice or not because it does not match their view of Christianity, not because it is truly outside of a Christian Voice. What falls within Christianity though is tremendously broad.

If you want to write about an expert in a certain denomination, consult with experts in that denomination and read specific material about it.

Things change when your main character is supposed to be an expert within a certain denomination. A Baptist Preacher will know precisely what transubstantiation is and have strong opinions on it along with a host of other things like what would constitute a miracle and a Catholic Priest will have different opinions on those topics. At that point you are not writing about a generic Christian voice, but about someone knowledgeable in a specific branch of Christianity.

The best answer there is to seek the opinion of someone who is an expert in that branch, or at least a serious practitioner of that particular branch, rather than just a Christian that chose that church out of convenience. If you cannot do that for some reason, then read the writings of that branch and get a feeling through that about what your chosen branch believes and how they discuss it.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

TimothyAWiseman‭

15 reputation 0 3 3 0

I'm a white Baptist who is married to a black Baptist, so if you have specific questions about the sort of things we say and do, maybe I can help. :-)

What you describe is an example of a problem writers face all the time: How do I write a character whose background is very different from my own?

Some advice I can think of that would apply here and to other "different cultures":

Step 1: Recognize that not everyone in the world thinks the same way you do. I think you've grasped this or you wouldn't be asking the question.

Different groups often have their own vocabulary. Sometimes this is technical language. When a physicist talks about "energy" he means something rather different than when a fitness trainer talks about "energy". Or in this context, Baptists (and other Christians) have many technical theological terms. Some have fancy names, like "Dispensationalism". Others are common English words to which Christians give more specific meanings than the general usage, like "grace" and "save". There are a few common words that Christians give totally different meanings, like "rapture".

I often get a chuckle out of the fact that when a group of Baptists get together to just eat or generally have a good time, what most people would call a "party", we call a "fellowship".

So you want your characters to talk like real members of the group. Like if two Baptists were discussing someone who recently converted to their religion, they almost certainly would NOT say, "We successfully proselytized him yesterday". They would probably say, "He was saved yesterday."

But don't overdo it. I'm a software developer. I know lots of technical computer terms. But in casual conversations with friends and family, I almost never use technical computer terms. Even in conversations with fellow software developers, most of the conversation does not involve technical terminology. Every now I or a co-worker actually do say a sentence that is almost entirely technical terms, and I get a chuckle to myself about how incomprehensible that sentence would be to an outsider. Same thing with other groups. Yes, when I'm talking to fellow Baptists we use "Baptist-speak". But 90% of the conversation would be perfectly comprehensible to people who do not know our vocabulary. Especially avoid over-use of specialized language in generic contexts. Like I've seen many depictions of evangelical Christians in TV and movies where every other word is some religious reference, like they can't say "bye, see you tomorrow", but say something "religious" like, "Godspeed, and may the Lord be with you until we meet again". No, we just don't talk like that.

Find out what people really believe, and not what their opponents say they believe. To take a relevant example: I often see depictions of evangelical Christians where they are extremely judgemental, denouncing everyone around them as a sinner and preening about how much better they are than these other people. Maybe you could find some Christians who talk like that, but I've never met one. Not to get into a theological discussion, but one of the most basic teachings of evangelical Christianity is that all humans are sinners, and that the Christian's advantage is most definitely not that he is better than anyone else, but that he is forgiven. When a Baptist meets a prostitute or a drug dealer or whatever, he does not say, "Get a way from me, I don't want to be contaminated by you low-lifes". He is far more likely to say, "Let me tell you how God forgave me for my sins and he can do the same for you."

Or on a much lighter note, I just read somewhere, I forget where, a Christian noted that when someone visits a priest or minister on a TV show, they always seem to meet in the sanctuary of the church, and the minister addresses them as "my son" or "my daughter". In real life, ministers have offices that look pretty much like the office of any professional, and they call people by their names just like everyone else.

But aside from these sort of generalities and examples, how do you deal with all the practical details?

Others have suggested reading books written by Christians. Definitely so. Especially novels, that might give you more of the day to day than a non-fiction book.

Ideally, talk to real Christians. You mentioned that you had some Christian friends or associates who read your drafts. Ask them for specific flaws. Not just, "This character doesn't talk like a real Baptist", but what's wrong with her speech, exactly? Can you point to a few sentences that are examples of things a Baptist would be unlikely to say, and tell me what they would say in those circumstances?

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Jay‭

1055 reputation 1 97 207 0

Sounds like an interesting premise. I’d probably like that story for my Jewish family; it sounds like you acknowledge some realities of Jewish life in America that a lot of fiction is ambivalent about.

First, I’d like to highlight Arcanist Lupus’ suggestion to read “authentic Christian voices.” Blogs and social media are good too, and might give you a more conversational voice than a book. The closer to the character’s background, the better.

Pam is also a character influenced by multiple perspectives. You don’t say how much Baptist doctrine she personally believes, or if she converted, or she got her husband to, or if it’s an interfaith marriage, or if they’re irreligious but value their different cultural backgrounds. She’s an educated person, and might think of a psychiatric explanation. (If she knows the subject, she probably decides that schizophrenia is not likely at Ruth’s age.) She’d have seen the same pop culture as other Americans her age.

Although it’s easy to find examples online of Evangelical Christians who think that voices in people’s heads come from the Devil, that might paint the character in an unsympathetic light, which I don’t think is your intent. She doesn’t sound like the kind of Christian who believes that.

She did, though, grow up in a culture which is more likely to look for family and faith to deal with issues like this, and less likely to seek professional help. The National Alliance on Mental Illness attributes this to “distrust” of the mental-health profession because of its past history of overdiagnosing African-Americans with mental illness, and the fact that “In the African American community, family, community and spiritual beliefs tend to be great sources of strength and support.” This is followed by several howevers, however, including that many believe “that a mental health condition is a personal weakness or some sort of punishment from God,” and “Be aware that sometimes faith communities can be a source of distress and stigma if they are misinformed about mental health or do not know how to support families dealing with these conditions.”

Even if Pam is a sympathetic and knowledgeable character, and none of those caveats apply to her, her cultural background still might make her less likely to tell anyone else that her niece is hearing voices and more likely to think that a spiritual approach is an appropriate way for Ruth to find strength and get through it. You don’t say where the plot is going to go from there, but there’s a good chance that works for your story.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Davislor‭

30 reputation 0 6 6 0