Can “Horror” and Christianity Co-Exist?
Got your coffee? A snack? An open mind? Good. You’re going to need all three of these things to settle down this controversial, rabbit hole adventure with me.
Also, please be aware that this post is going to have very frank discussions of sexual abuse and gore.
A tiny publishing house in the Christian publishing sphere who thinks they’re hot shit has decided to take a number of stands lately. One is to slut-shame (or smut-shame) their readers with the hashtag #sickofthissmut in which they demonize readers of steamy romance. And today, they decided to announce an imprint for “horror, thrillers, and the darkness…so long as the light wins at the end.”
Now, in theory, I would have no problem with this. Christian beliefs states that “That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it” (John 1:5, HCSB). We believe that the battle between good and evil has already been won; it’s already the guaranteed outcome. For a Christian publisher to require that “horror” have that sort of ending is perfectly reasonable.
But.
When this comes from the same publisher who has been tooting their own horn about “clean fiction” (a term I HATE), then I question what they really believe the darkness is? What do they think horror is?
What is "horror"?
I watch a lot more film than I read books, so keep in mind most of my examples will be specifically in regards to film. But discussing the definition of “horror” as a genre applies across mediums.
Those of us who are really passionate about specific genres get really mad when our genre labels are hijacked, redefined, and changed to make other people comfortable. This doesn’t just apply to horror. This applies to romance, science fiction, fantasy, etc. For a fantasy fan, just because a story takes place in the Medieval era and has a dragon does not make it “good fantasy.” (Note that this is just surface level. There are countless subgenres that cater to different tastes within those large genres.)
Horror is one of the most misunderstood genres as a whole for this reason. The term “horror” is defined as “a painful and intense fear, dread, or dismay.” Because of this, many people think anything with “horrifying content” is horror. In general, the horror genre is made up of stories built around events, imagery, or content that would be associated with those feelings. What brings up those feelings depends on the different subgenres: slasher (serial killers), monsters, cosmic (fear of the indescribable), supernatural (ghosts, demons, etc.), and others.
Note that I said associated with those feelings. Some horror people (like myself) tend to avoid horror stories that would stir up those emotions directly in my brain.
"Horrifying" is not the same as the GENRE of "horror."
Horrifying components, but not horror.
The films with the most horrifying content I have seen were not horror. Avoiding the label of “horror” does not mean you will avoid “horrifying” content.
Catherine Breillat’s Fat Girl (2001) follows two young sisters (12-15) trying to beat each other at finding boyfriends first as they explore their own sexuality–which they must navigate in ways unique to their body types. This film includes the conventionally attractive sister coerced into anal sex by her older boyfriend as she cries. It also involves a madman who rapes the other sister who is likely closer to 12. This film is categorized as a drama.
Into the Forest (2015) is a survival thriller with a graphic rape scene in the middle of the film. One member of my class argued this categorized the film as horror, but that is not true. The sexual abuse content is not the foundation or core of the story, therefore this is a thriller with horrifying components.
Horror, but not horrifying.
There are also films categorized under the horror genre that are not meant to be horrifying. We see this with movies like the Tremors franchise or Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. These films are built around a premise affiliated with emotions of horror (monsters and serial killers), but the execution and tone of the story is funny. Dark comedies often fall under this category. (See Beetlejuice for a more mainstream example.)
Can horror be "clean"?
The reason I take such an issue with the term “clean” is that it infers a lack of content based on an unspoken catalog of objectionable material. “Clean” fiction is a way to have “safe” fiction.
When you’re within the Christian publishing sphere you learn that these terms tend to mean no profanity, no sex, and maybe violence, but no gore. Most stories in Christian publishing have a very narrow window in which to craft their conflict due to these restraints. This culture also defines “marketable” stories by a bullet-pointed checklist of what isn’t in the books, which further contributes to a culture of media illiteracy in which one is unable to manage their own personal distress tolerance well enough to sift through very complicated and very real problems.
Ignoring the nuanced issues with the term “clean,” and abiding by the inferred definition above, it is possible to have clean horror. However, it severely limits the genre’s maturity. Thus, most “clean” horror would need to be relegated to Middle-Grade or Young Adult. Adult “clean” horror lacks a demographical foundation for what could constitute subject matter safe enough to be “clean” and yet still flirt with the idea of the horrifying. By the very nature of the term, “horror” cannot lack objectionable content.
Horror is, by the very nature of the genre, not “safe.”
Should Christians engage with horror as a genre?
For some of us, no.
I’ve said this so many times for the teen website I wrote for, but: it depends on your conviction. This is between you and God. Not just regarding horror, but regarding any media you choose to consume and engage with. As Christians, we have significant freedom in choosing what we do (1 Corinthians 10), however there are guidelines in helping us wisely choose what is beneficial.
The most common guideline is Philippians 4:8 (HCSB):
Finally brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any moral excellence and if there is any praise—dwell on these things.
For many believers (and people in general), the genre of horror just offers a list of new things to be anxious or frightened over. Before someone has nightmares extremely easily, or struggles with a debilitating phobia. Or, perhaps someone finds themselves overly interested in the darkness and horror would trip up their walk with God. If horror is placing your mind on fear, anxiety, and otherwise pulling you away from light, then it’s a problem.
For some of us, it’s fine.
For others, horror offers a catharsis, a passive enjoyment, or even a contained environment to process very real fears in a context that cannot physically hurt them. Christians have utilized religious horror as a means to identify and parse apart how their own theology may have been twisted and used against them. Horror can act as a contrast to see light more clearly when contrasted against the dark.
"Clean" fiction is not bad.
Backing up just a bit here, but I do want to state that “clean fiction” is not inherently bad. Some folks deal with enough real-life trauma, horror, and ugliness and they just want a low-stakes novel to unwind to. There is nothing wrong with this–and I am so glad that they have options across the different genres to do this!
However, co-opting a genre specifically dedicated to examining the darkness and redefining how “dark” something can be and still be Christian is insulting. Perhaps if this publisher hadn’t made such a big deal to manufacture a cause in smut-shaming any reader who read steamy romance alongside their clean reads, I wouldn’t be so mad. Every publishing house has a set of guidelines that they follow for acquisitions. This is just basic branding.
However, when the precedent is set that these “clean alternatives” are morally superior it does the damage of insulting and shaming those who have real-life experiences that would be banned from a book. “Clean” infers anything else is “dirty.” It also infers that those with lived experiences that are not “clean” are also “dirty.”
Horror isn't safe, but it is a safe place for many.
The world can be a truly beautiful place…but it can also be a terribly dark place. A friend of mine works in anti-human trafficking, and the insidious nature of human creativity to pervert, dehumanize, and abuse is limitless. I have one friend who has been almost killed by a stalker. Another friend forcibly committed to a psychiatric institution because she was depressed and defined as “demon possessed.”
Having a genre where there aren’t constraints on what can happen makes space to represent everyone’s experiences. There is an unfortunate “cap” on how bad your life can be before it would be categorized as “dirty” for those who compartmentalize fiction by moral labels (“clean,” “dirty,” “safe,” “dangerous”). By separating content into “clean” and “not clean” that further reflects a subconscious reframing of people who have experienced “dirty content” in their lives.
Steady consumption of stories that are primarily defined by “clean” and “not-clean” strongly influences how we view and humanize/dehumanize people in real life. Now, instead of just saying, “I don’t care for that type of story, thanks,” it is a moral stand to “not read that type of story.
But what about the woman who was trafficked? What about the man who suffered substance abuse and got clean? Were they dirty? Or were they–and do they continue to be–beautiful persons crafted in the image of the Creator God who happened to be victimized by the brokenness and evil of the world?
Horror stories make space for some peoples’ worst experiences to be “seen” and validated as real and worthy of overcoming.
Hijacking a term to make it something it's not is NOT the answer.
I have absolutely no issue with people who don’t like horror or who don’t want to see or read about terrible things. My dad specifically “hates death” and so films with a heavy emphasis on death bothers him greatly–so horror isn’t a good option for him.
However, I do have an issue with a publishing house–someone of influence–inferring that stories must fit within a narrow bracket of “acceptable content” to be fit for the consumption of others. People and their stories do not have to be sanitized to matter and to be important.
Christian publishing is so afraid of the “appearance of evil” that they forget “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14) and “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8).
Just because something is comfortable doesn’t mean that it is morally superior. Just because something is uncomfortable doesn’t mean it is morally inferior.
You're responsible for what you consume.
I wonder if part of the reason some religious sub-cultures try to control their media so much is out of pardoned responsibility. Christian “pop culture” is notoriously poor quality in general. (I say in general because there are great artists in the Christian sphere.) Part of that stems from the lack of respect for art as a practice, a priority to “evangelize” over telling a story, and an absolute paranoia over being perceived as “worldly.”
But we are responsible for what we choose to read and watch and listen to. Full stop. No amount of censorship abdicates one’s individual responsibility over their choices. What censorship does do is mitigate one’s ability to spot the spiritual, cultural, moral, and ethical threats that are actually quite common in “clean” fiction.
“Clean” fiction tends to be less about cleanliness, and more about enforcing a privileged normality. “Clean” fiction often has terrible depictions of mental illness used for cheap conflict, unintentionally abusive patterns as romantic, is racist, and acts morally superior to those who are not Christians.
This isn’t always the case. But by fiercely cloistering away one’s exposure to “the world” by focusing exclusively on “safe” fiction, one inherently distances oneself from the ability to communicate in the world (John 17:13-19).
Fear has no place in the Christian's life.
I find that there’s a lot more fear in Christians who believe horror is morally inferior than those who take horror in stride or just don’t like it. This reflects the tragic commonality of Christianity being a religion of fear, when it is supposed to be a religion and faith of love, grace, and redemption.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. – 1 John 4:18
But what is there to redeem if there is no darkness? What is there to redeem if we’re so careful of micromanaging morality that we utterly and completely miss the freedom of living in the shadow of the love of God? How sad is a redemption that is limited to a certain criteria of extremism before being discounted as too worldly or too dirty? Is that even any redemption at all?
