Maybe Christian Art Shouldn't Be "Clean"

Or, "How Christians misunderstand the purpose of art."

This essay is also available in an (AI-free) video format here.

In the past year, I attended a number of Christian writer’s conferences and expos. As things usually go with events like these, certain themes emerged from the booths, speakers, and the books on display.

In the larger publishing world, Romantasy¹ was having its moment, so (in typical evangelical fashion) most conferences were filled to the brim with Romantasy-for-Christians.

To be clear, the marketing was not “Buy this book because it is Romantasy for Christians”. Instead, everything was labelled as “clean” or “without spice”.² The idea being, “this story is just like the Fourth Wing, but without the explicit sex scenes”.

In other words, Romantasy… for Christians.

In a way, it’s simply what many of us have born witness to our whole lives. Growing up through the 90’s in an evangelical family and community, I was often given books, movies, and music that was the “Christian” version of whatever was popular. I literally played a Noah’s Ark game on Nintendo where you platformed like Mario to save animals (probably two-by-two)³.

By the time I was in high school, I was so sick of the ”knock off” versions of art, I couldn’t wait to get out from under my parents’ gaze and watch R-rated movies, play violent video games, listen to hard rock, and read Harry Potter. I wanted the “real” thing.

Perhaps the only difference now is that Christians are “knocking off” what is already exceptionally poor art.

No one (and I mean no one) has ever read a novel from Rebecca Yarros or Sarah J. Maas and thought to themselves, “ah yes, this was such excellent literature I’m sure this will be studied in future English classes for generations to come.” Instead, these books will fall into the uncomfortable shame of later years when current “fans” have mild heart attacks when they find their twelve year old reading their old copy of A Court of Thorns and Roses.⁴

Christians attempting to create “safe” or “clean” versions of this type of art is sad, for it lends credence to the art through the compliment of imitation. And on top of that, it is misidentifying what makes this art “non-Christian”.

• Sex scenes are not un-Biblical.

• Gory violence is not un-Biblical.

• Homosexuality, incest, and all other forms of sexual deviance is not un-Biblical.

No, each of these are very much in the Bible. In fact, we (as followers of Jesus) must engage with these scene (even at a young age) as a part of our formative process to become more like Jesus. If we were to skip whole sections of Scripture (which no one says they do…) then we would become malformed believers indeed.

The presence of “dirty” content is not what makes something “un-Biblical” or “anti-Christian” or whatever.

It is what the art says about the content, that matters.

In other words, art that says “sex outside of marriage is good” is un-Biblical. But art that pretends it doesn’t happen, and thus never meaningly addresses it, is lying and is thus also “un-Biblical”.

---

Less About the “Content” and More About the “Lens”

I am currently re-reading The Hunger Games. I can still recall when the movies released, sending the book into a moment of mega-popularity. I asked someone if they were going to see the film, and they looked at me with disgust. When I asked what was wrong, her answer was simple. Children kill each other, so she could never condone going to see the movie.

Her look told me she was very much judging that I was excited to see the film.

Suzanne Collins, if the internet can be believed⁵, is a devout Catholic. Although I cannot attest to whether or not that is true, I can say that the original Hunger Games trilogy is profoundly Christian⁶.

Not because there is child violence, but because of what the literature (and movies) tells you about violence. When someone dies in the Hunger Games, you as the reader (or movie goer) never feel excited or eager. Action sequences aren’t “fun”. They’re sad. Villains aren’t pure evil and the heroes are complicated, selfish, and broken.

In other words, the stories are profoundly “Biblical” because it leads the reader to draw the same conclusions about humanity and violence that the Bible does.

That, and that alone, is what makes something “Christian”.

Art, whether or not made by or for those in the Church, is Christian not when it is clean, but when it leads the reader to see the world through a Biblical lens. And you can’t help someone see something through a Biblical lens when an artist (or a gatekeeper such as a publisher) refuses to engage in content such as sex or violence.

If your standards of “cleanliness” would prohibit you from including content found in the Scriptures, you aren’t creating art that is “Christian”, you are just creating art which attempts to make money from an evangelical consumer block.

It isn’t honoring to the Lord. It’s fleecing His flock.

Gratuitous violence isn’t necessarily the problem, it’s the conclusion that violence leads the reader/viewer to concluding. In John Wick or a Steven King novel, the conclusions is that the violence is interesting and fun. But watch Schindler’s List or read The Hunger Games, and you’ll thirst for righteousness and pray the Kingdom comes.

“Clean” versions of violence (maybe consider Star Wars, for example) simply make violence feel whitewashed and safe. In a way, it forms us more like the gratuitous violence portrayed by Gladiator or some other R-rated film—it makes violence seem cool.

Sex scenes and “spice” aren’t necessarily the problem, it’s the conclusion that sex outside of a loving covenant of marriage leads to life and fulfillment. Fifty Shades of Gray reduces humans to their most base and perverse, treating humans as though they are valued for little more than the pleasure their bodies can bring/receive, and it is “un-Biblical” in the extreme. Yet the Bible itself contains so much sexual content (and I’m not just referring to the Songs of Solomon). Here is (one of many) quick examples: Judah’s son, Onan, is required to marry his dead brother’s wife, Tamar, as a way of continuing his brother’s legacy and ensuring Tamar would have financial/physical security throughout her life. Yet the text is explicit in describing how he would have sex with Tamar and intentionally remove himself and ejaculate on the ground⁷—meaning he would use her for sexual pleasure, but refuse to give her a child.

I know zero Christian publishers that would publish a book today with such graphic content. Now, it may not “seem” graphic because a) it’s in the Bible and b) our translations use English words that are more sterile such as “slept with his brother’s wife” and “spilled semen on the ground”. But the phrases are crass in Hebrew, and intentionally so.

Yet our modern day “Christian” content which is “spice free” likewise is often free of leading readers to the same conclusions that stories within the Bible do. Human depravity, including all forms of sexual deviance, must be on display for us to be formed into people who can come to the conclusion that sex can be one of the most harmful and destructive forces in human experience—or one of the most edifying.

Again, the inclusion of sinful content is not problematic, it is what the art has to say about that sin that can be problematic.

Perhaps one of the most profound problems in much art today, Christian or otherwise, is it simply has nothing meaningful to say about the world. And because of that, it says the worst things of all.

---

---

Having Something To Say

Nothing annoys me more than encountering what I call “Transformers” art.

Do you remember the original Transformers live action movie from 2007? It was… fine. The CGI was incredible, and everything else was… there. Millions of dollars invested into art that communicated to the audience… nothing at all. Robots are cool. Robot fights are cooler.

It was a movie symbolic of most art—thoughtless.

If you think too hard at all, the movie is no fun.

The thing is, this is the most dangerous and destructive art of all. It’s the sort of art that promises you escape—a carefree “good time”—but is actually shaping you internally without you realizing it. Female characters are paraded for sexual arousal (but no sex scenes!), minivans with families are thrown around (but no violent death scenes!), and good/evil is put into its simplest possible terms.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the director was trying to shape you. I’m not saying there is a conspiracy here. But like it or not, these pieces of “escapism” are deeply formative precisely because they are not trying to make any profound claim about the world. They just drop images and ideas into our minds that normalize worldly things without us noticing, and if someone in our friend group raises a concern they’re told their legalistic, or they don’t understand, or “its not that serious”.

But art is always that serious.

So much art pitched to Christians today is “Transformers” art. Shallow and thoughtless, created based on certain evangelical assumptions about the world, fitting into certain expectations about what is included/excluded not with the Bible as a model, but with western evangelical consumerism as the model.

Give me an N. K. Jemisin or Margaret Atwood novel over one of these any day of the week. Those women deeply disagree with my Christian worldview, but their books are thoughtful and have something to say. Their deep pursuit of creating impactful art is more “Christian” than shallow books written to simply give readers a “clean” option.

But none of us need clean options.

We need art that is created in partnership with the Spirit, born from grief and joy, and has something of value to say to the world.

Les Misérables isn’t still read because it is “safe”. It really isn’t. It’s bloody and sexual and gross, and deeply Christian. Victor Hugo was a follower of Jesus and had profound things to say to France at the time. And we still read it today because God is still pleased to use it today. But, for sheer content alone, the book would not be published by many “Christian” publishers.

Art that is most notable made in partnership with the Holy Spirit won’t be sheer escapism and won’t be marked by being “clean”, because there is no Biblical evidence that the Spirit works in those ways. No, the Holy Spirit enables humans to make art that draws people closer to Christ, and that is often (though not always) art that exposes the deep harm of the ways of this world.

In other words, it is art that often shows the depths of both human sin and God’s love. Both in their extremes.

And when that is done in combination with a pursuit of excellence in the craft, you get art that forms people really, really, well.

---

But Phil…

Addressing some objections and making some clarifications.

So anything goes?

Is it okay, then, for a writer to describe every squirt of gory blood and describe every movement of body parts as two people have sex?

Of course not. But why it isn’t okay, matters.

Excessively described violence and sex shouldn’t be in books, movies, music, etc. because:

• It’s almost always lazy art, making money because of people’s perversion rather than excellence in craft.

• Too excessive descriptions almost always mean the author is trying communicate that something is “good” and deserves attention.

Saying “Christians shouldn’t watch/read that” isn’t helpful and isn’t accurate. Christians should be present at the very depths of human depravity, it’s where our most fruitful mission fields are. But we are fruitful in those spaces not because we have whitewashed sinful experiences, but because we engage with them and zealously point to something more beautiful.

But what about the children?

Well, Hebrew children would have memorized passages in the Scriptures, about rape, incest, violent death, and even poems about healthy sexual desire. Our passage from Genesis 38 referenced above, and many more that are more graphic, would have been read aloud for children to hear and process.

We live in a weird (and recent) phenomena where we actually avoid certain stories in the Bible on Sunday morning because children may be present.

I am not saying art made for children shouldn’t look different than art made for adults. It should. However, we aren’t being wise when we think avoiding certain issues with children is helpful. Wisdom is not avoiding certain things with children, it’s asking God how He wants us to communicate those things to our children.

That being said, I can’t say for you when children should encounter certain topics. That’s a decision families should make alongside their Church community.

But I can say that the first encounter a child has with sex and violence should come from Scripture, and then from excellent art that reinforces the Christian (not “western/conservative evangelical”) view of those things.

Children should mourn and grieve because of art, learning to let their hearts break like Jesus’.⁸

So about YA…

Quick bone to pick.

Young Adult (YA) novels are a hit and have been for awhile. It really isn’t because the books are primarily read by those who are 12-18 (they aren’t⁹). YA has found a niche in the market for adults who want to read on a “more accessible” reading level.

This has created a complicated moment in the publishing/reading world as much of the romance YA genre now contains porn-level sexual content because many adult women are drawn to erotica content similar to how many men are drawn to visual porn. The thing is, these books are still technically marketed at younger (12-16 year old) girls.

It would be like a porn website getting an ad on Disney.

The Christian response is (as I stated above) to “write the same kind of stories and make them ‘clean’”. This usually comes from a desire to create books that girls can read that will give them the fun stories without the porn. Quick and unrealistic romance, a bit of whitewashed violence and adventure, but with characters who have an unnatural ability to control their sexual desires.

Please hear me out on this. I am not saying the desire to write romance without the spice is bad. It just like Christian fantasy writers during the rise of grimdark, wanting to write “gritty” stuff, but with hope in the mix. Or when the 90’s had all this Christian pop and rock that was practically the same beat/sound as secular music, but with “clean” lyrics.

The desire to make content that seems “safe” isn’t bad.

It’s unwise.

The reasons are all those listed above. Teenagers don’t need sterile and safe art. For most of human history, a sixteen year old is getting married, learning to raise children, take care of a family, and be a part of a community as a full member.

In other words: be a full adult.

I’m not saying we can’t celebrate the changes to the human experience that mean longer lifespans, more education, and slightly delayed adulthood. But making malformed teens (i.e. teens with a sterilized understanding of the world and, therefore, God’s kingdom) isn’t honoring the changes our culture has made over the last few hundred years—changes often pioneered by those in the Church.

A sixteen year old should still have a profound understanding of sex and violence, and have had a heart formed by the Church to see those things through God’s eyes.

YA should help with that, and selling books because they are “spice free” isn’t helping. No, I’m not saying we need Christians to write descriptive oral sex scenes. We do need Christians to write scenes about being pressured into sex, the complicated emotions of enjoying sex but feeling shamed and exposed, the strange desire to serve someone sexually as an act of love but the damage that causes when it is outside of covenant marriage, the rush of guilt felt at a miscarriage (which we shouldn’t feel), and even the total awkwardness that is early sex inside a healthy marriage.

Also (and more importantly) those conversations should happen in the family and church community. I’m simply saying that in addition, there should be excellent art that expresses those things, preparing the hearts and imaginations of our teenage sons and daughters to see the world through God’s eyes.

So sex and violence in everything?

Great question.

No.

Most Christian art does not need to address sex and violence, just like most of the Bible doesn’t address sex and violence. But the absence of such things shouldn’t be the selling point or the marketing.

All art made by Christians should be intentionally crafted to form us to be more like Christ, and not everyone is called to handle some of these “darker” issues, for lack of a better word. So now, authors reading this should not feel pressured to include sex and violence in their stories.

However, authors reading this should be asking how they are forming their readers if they leave it out. A romance between two characters without any sexual tension can seem fake, even like a lie. Violence that is flippant with life, which is the vast majority of Christian art that contains violence, is more damaging than grotesque violence that will at least repulse many (just like real violence does).

The key is to be deeply intentional, and not make “cleanliness” a goal.

The goal is always, without exception, glorifying Christ. Sometimes, scenes that are considered “dirty” are the very thing that does that. Refusal to create that sort of art may become disobedience to the Lord who did not refuse to place it in His own book.

---

Conclusions

What makes art “Christian” or not is not what is contained within the art, but the conclusions it leads the audience to drawing about God, other humans, and the world.

Art that avoids certain elements of the human experience simply to be “safe” to a Christian audience, (at best) misunderstands discipleship or (at worst) is intentionally trying to sell to a Christian market.

We are most like our Creator not when avoid human depravity and sin, but when we see human depravity and sin the way He does, and lead others to see the same.

1. A romance novel in a fantasy-themed world. It’s been around for a long time, but sometime in the last five years BookTok got the idea they invented it.

2. I have never heard so many people say the words “fade to black”.

3. Seriously, it was a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Adventures

4. The 2026 version of Dad’s playboy back in the 80s.

5. It probably can’t.

6. I haven’t seen or read the newest additions to the series.

7. See Genesis 38

8. I can still remember when my oldest son read The Bridge to Terabithia. When the child died in the end, he cried and grieved as though losing a friend. This was sad and hard to watch, but we walked him through it and he has become more loving and empathetic because of it. In other words, that book helped him become more like Jesus, because the way it showed death was in agreement with the Bible. It wasn’t “Transformers” flippant. It gave it weight and meaning.

9. Statistics range wildly, but somewhere between 57%-80% of YA books are read by those over the age of 18.

See this article by the American Library Association or this one by Publisher’s Weekly.