God Is Good

Email problems turned into computer problems, so I haven’t been able to post here of late. But I was reminded this morning that God is good, and I know this is true regardless of the kind or severity of the problems we encounter. From A. W. Tozer’s The Knowledge of the Holy:

Always God’s goodness is the ground of our expectation. Repentance, though necessary, is not meritorious but a condition for receiving the gracious gift of pardon which God gives of His goodness. Prayer is not in itself meritorious. It lays God under no obligation nor puts Him in debt to any. He hears prayer because He is good, and for no other reason. Nor is faith meritorious; it is simply confidence in the goodness of God, and the lack of it is a reflection upon God’s holy character. (p. 89, emphasis mine)

Vampires and Angels – 2

We had such good discussion on the Vampires and Angels Tuesday post, I decided to blog on it again rather than responding in the comment section.

Where to start?

First, I think I’ve made my point about real beings and historical events, but what about those elements that are purely make-believe? Such as vampires.

While vampires are imaginary, they do have one thing that defines them—they ingest blood in order to survive. The myth, of course, is that they need human blood—hence their status as evil because they killed others to survive.

Of late, however, the “good” vampires found ways to satisfy their need for blood without taking human life. So the question moves to a theological one. The Bible says in Old and New Testament that Jews, then Christians, were to refrain from eating meat with the blood. So what can we assume about creatures that survive by ingesting the blood of another? I’d say, if they existed in this world, they stand in opposition to God’s law.

But what if these creatures exist in a fantasy world without God’s law? Must we, as readers, interpret such creatures in the light of Biblical reality? I don’t think so, not any more than we need to interpret physical events in a fantasy world by earthly reality. In other words, if it’s OK to include a portal between worlds or a flat earth or a sword only the rightful king can remove from its stone setting or any number of things and beings and events that do not adhere to earthly physical laws, then can’t fantasy also reinvent elements in a way that does not adhere to Biblical laws?

Understand, I’m not saying Biblical laws are to be ignored, just that they don’t apply in the same way to a fantasy world or a fantasized rendering of beings. Consequently, in a fantasy, people don’t need to become Christians. Salvation can be depicted through symbol or allegory or through what C. S. Lewis called “supposal.” (For more on this, check out my article at Spec Faith). The idea is, the author imagines a fantasy world and then asks, how would God make Himself known in this place, to these people?

So I might imagine a world where all people drank each other’s blood. They didn’t think it wrong because they all did it. How would God show Himself to those people? I can see Him coming as the only person ever born who did not drink blood. I can see a story about a group of blood-drinkers determined to take His blood by force.

What about beings with power over others and even over nature? How would God show Himself to them? Any number of story ideas suggest themselves.

Now what if I called those beings with power, witches and wizards?

Have I violated Scripture if some of those mythical creatures side with the good that must come if God, as He would show Himself in that fantasy, shows up? Perhaps of equal importance, must I show that their power comes from God?

I suggest it isn’t necessary any more than it is necessary to show that a character in a realistic novel can speak or think because God gave him that ability. In a fantasy world, if “special” powers are the norm, or the norm for a certain class of people, then I don’t think their power has to be shown as either from Good or from evil. Certainly a story can show this if the author chooses, but I don’t think it’s necessary.

Which brings me to Lord of the Rings. The wizards in Tolkien’s work are a special class of people; their power isn’t derivative. It is power that they use for good or for ill, depending on the intent of their heart. And nothing about his imagined beings is like real humans who practice divination or witchcraft. Tolkien has invented a different being but used a familiar name.

Frodo’s buddy Sam has a familiar name, but that doesn’t mean he is human. The point is, names must be understood in context. Because Aragon is called a Man doesn’t mean he’s restricted to act like men of reality act. In fact, he doesn’t.

In the same way, the White Witch, though Lewis depicted her as evil, did not act in any way like witches described in the Bible. She was as much a fictitious construct as Tolkien’s wizards.

Well, I have more to say, but this post is too long as it is. If you’re still reading, abundant kudos to you!

The Swiss Courier – A Review

One of my little known secrets is that I was a history minor in college. I fell in love with studying European history my junior year and would have changed my major from English except for a two-year foreign language requirement I couldn’t fulfill and still graduate with my class.

Now that you know that little tidbit, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I enjoy historical novels. Some of my favorite books fit into that category—Gone with the Wind, The Scarlet Pimpernel, The Count of Monte Cristo, Exodus.

Hence, when I had a chance to read The Swiss Courier by Tricia Goyer and Mike Yorkey, I was happy to take a holiday from the norm and plunge into a World War II novel set in a location I knew little of—neutral Switzerland.

The Story. Germany is involved in research of a powerful weapon, one they believe will insure victory over the Allies. When a group of German officers attempts to assassinate Hitler, however, the secret police work overtime to ferret out traitors from within the ranks. One diligent Gestapo officer discovers that a scientist working on the ultimate weapon is a Jew—hence, in the twisted Nazi thinking, an enemy of the state.

As the Gestapo plans to take this scientist into custody, the freedom fighters within Germany work with the American Office of Strategic Affairs plan to smuggle him into the hands of the Allies. The success or failure of the plan lies on the shoulders of a young Swiss courier named Gabi.

Strengths. This was a delightful story because it had believable, interesting characters and a plot filled with intrigue. There was some necessary violence (it does take place in wartime!), but it was of the mildest sort.

I especially liked seeing the war from the viewpoint of a neutral country (though there were precious few of those, hence the name “World War”), especially one so close to Germany that the threat of invasion hung over the Swiss year after year.

The theme of the book was woven through the story naturally.

Weaknesses. In some places, I thought the historical data was too much—types and descriptions of weapons, airplanes, even some places seemed more detailed than necessary, and consequently a little distracting from the story. Also there was a plot point I’m sure was meant to be a surprise but in fact it was predictable, though I haven’t figured out why.

Recently agent Rachelle Gardner did a blog post on Foreshadowing vs Telegraphing. I’m not sure what elements tip a reader off rather than give a proper hint. Maybe there are no particular guidelines—one reader may be surprised and another saw the event coming from the first chapter. It may depend completely on the experience of the reader. Well, not completely. At any rate, I saw the twist coming. I was pleased with it—glad, even, that I was right, so it didn’t spoil the story, but neither did it surprise.

Recommendation. If you enjoy historical fiction, especially that set in the World War II era, I recommend you read this book. It will give you hours of reading pleasure.

Vampires and Angels

I’m late, but I wanted to add my voice to the discussion started at My Friend Amy as part of her Faith ‘n Fiction Saturday. Here are the questions:

So my question for you today is…what do you think about these kinds [vampire] of stories? Do you enjoy the fictional vampire stories or the fictional stories about angels? Are you more likely to read a story about an angel than a vampire? What do you think is the appeal of these books?

Interesting topic in light of the discussion we had centered on Eric Wilson’s Haunt of Jackals.

First vampires. Not my cup of tea. I may have mentioned a time or two that I’m not a fan of horror. I don’t like being scared and don’t understand why anyone else would. It is an unpleasant sensation, so why would I voluntarily put myself through the experience for hours on end? It makes no sense to me.

Some people have told me it’s an adrenalin rush. I get plenty of that as a sports fan (and earlier, as a coach and player) and don’t find that source to be unpleasant (unless my team loses ).

Of late I’ve been dismayed by the “twilighting” of vampires. As I understand their original mythic role, they were evil, beings to fight against. But today’s vampires—from TV’s Angel to Twilight’s whats-his-name—vampires might be blood-suckers, but their self-restraint made them good. It’s a very humanistic message, not to mention that it plays to the “love the bad boy” syndrome too many young girls fall into as it is.

But are angel stories any better? I’ve only read a couple. I understand “fallen angels” stories are becoming more and more popular. Uh … I thought fallen angels were demons. So how can fallen angels be characters we cheer for? Perhaps the fallen angels will be beings to fear, taking the place, in essence, of olden day vampires. In that case, I refer you to the paragraph above about my reaction to horror.

The larger issue when it comes to angels, however, is exactly what Amy said in her answer to these questions: angels are real. Vampires, as fictitious beings, aren’t tied to the original imagining of such creatures. Authors are free to speculate all they wish.

Angels, as long as they are not the cute and cuddly kind—in other words, angels portrayed in any way as Scripture reveals them to be—must be handled in the same way other historical beings are handled. They must be researched. They must adhere to what we know to be true.

Personally, I don’t see stories about angels being interesting at all. If we give them anthropomorphic emotions, we will be distorting reality. If we show them as single-minded servants of the most high God, then there really is no internal conflict that makes for a good story.

I’m not in anyway interested in these stories. The ones I’ve read fell far short, even when the writing was good.

So I’ll have to say, count me out of these angel/vampire tales.

How about you? Are you a fan of vampire stories? And if so, why? Have you read any angel stories? Do you look forward to the new wave of stories featuring angels?

As an aside, months ago I started a discussion over at Amazon and last week, who should make a comment but Anne Rice. I wanted to verify that this was THE Anne Rice, and sure enough, it was. In the process, though, I visited her Web site and saw the “angels are the new vampires” tag line. That was the first I was aware of the coming trend.

Thoughts on Marketing

I read an interesting article about the old and new marketing—old being corporation-controlled advertisement and new being the “conversations” held through social media (blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, et al.)

Here’s part of the discussion pertinent to what I want to talk about:

Most corporations, says The Cluetrain Manifesto [a 1999 thesis endorsed by a host of marketers], “ignore their ability to deliver genuine knowledge, opting instead to crank out sterile happytalk that insults the intelligence of markets literally too smart to buy it.”

Moreover, it says, these companies “only know how to talk in the soothing, humorless monotone of the mission statement, marketing brochure, and your-call-is-important-to-us busy signal. Same old tone, same old lies. No wonder networked markets have no respect for companies unable or unwilling to speak as they do.”

Honestly, when I read those lines, I first thought of some book reviews, particularly those discussing Christian fiction. I also thought of Mike Duran’s occasional objections to Christian fiction reviews, much of which I think has merit.

In Mike’s article, he postulated that some reviewers may write puff pieces because they are happy to see works centered on the gospel. In other words, because they love the gospel and because a particular work of fiction promotes the gospel, the reviewer feels compelled to love that work of fiction. Therefore, they write reviews filled with “happy talk” and lines straight from marketing brochures.

The result is a loss of credibility. Why should those seeking information about products they might like to buy pay attention to reviews that always and only speak in glowing terms?

Mind you, I’m not pretending I have review writing figured out. Just recently a friend who frequents this blog emailed me about a particular book this person bought as a result of my review. Problem was, at least in the beginning, the book, in this person’s estimation, wasn’t measuring up to my recommendation.

But here are a few things I’ve come to believe about reviews:

1) They don’t have to trash books, even the ones that are less than great or maybe even terrible. Writing, after all, isn’t easy, and the author of the book should be respected for his efforts.

2) Reviews should be honest. A reviewer who always says the current work he’s discussing is the best thing since C. S. Lewis, simply loses credibility.

3) Most books have strengths and weaknesses. In mentioning both, reviewers actually gain credibility. Plus, many readers will decide that the things that bothered the reviewer aren’t significant enough to dissuade them from buying the book.

4) Reviews should not serve in place of discernment. Again, in discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a work, the reviewer is actually putting the ball back in the hands of the reader, forcing him make his own decision.

5) Recommendations can be tailored. Because I as a reviewer may not like a book, does that mean no one else will, or should? Absolutely not. However, if I make judgments as to who I think might like the book and to what extent they may like it, my recommendation can then guide others to consider whether or not they are part of that audience.

If book reviews are to be part of the “new marketing” dependent upon conversations, those need to be genuine, and Christians reviewing fiction should be in the forefront. Our integrity should matter.

The Readers’ Choice – Clive Staples Award

It’s official. The Readers’ Choice Survey to determine the winner of the 2009 Clive Staples Award for Christian Speculative Fiction is ready. You can visit the Award site for details or go directly to the survey from here.

Please pass the links on to your friends, but let them know they must have read at least one of the nominated books in order to be eligible to vote. Hopefully that will discourage “ballot stuffing.” We want readers to have a voice, not just willing friends who like a particular author.

To make this work, however, readers have to know about this award and their opportunity to express their opinion. That’s where you all come in. You may or may not be a fan of Christian speculative fiction, but the chances are, someone you know is. If you would mention the award on your blog or in your emails, I would really appreciate it.

Conquering the Computer

I’ll never conquer the computer, I’m pretty sure, but happily, the email problems I’ve been experiencing are being worked out by a competent professional. Once I have everything updated, I’ll be able to post a proper article. Maybe even a Saturday special.

Pride and Criticism

It seems to me that criticism can be an outgrowth of pride. Strange, I suspect, coming from one who, in part, earned a living, as a teacher and coach, evaluating students’ work or performance. And who now regularly critiques the writing of others, either as a paid editor or as an occasional book blogger.

Writing book reviews and editing, teaching and coaching, may not seem like “criticism,” but there is a shared element. In each instance, the one reviewing, editing, or evaluating is taking the position of judge, even if only for a short time and in a narrow jurisdiction. Generally the person in such positions has the right, and in many cases, the responsibility, to exercise a degree of criticism. How much would students learn if teachers refrained from instructive criticism and became mere cheerleaders in the classroom?

But there’s a danger in taking on that role of judge—the temptation to think more highly of oneself than he should.

Being in authority, even for brief moments, can be a heady experience. I’ll never forget my first day of teaching when I told my homeroom students to take out a piece of paper … and they DID. I was shocked by the fact that thirty-one twelve-year-olds were doing what I told them to. It was a little heady (until the day they decided to test me to see what would happen if they didn’t listen and obey. )

Here’s where I’m going. In our contemporary American culture, we all act as if we have the right to criticize … anyone and anything at any time. We criticize the coach of our favorite team if they lose, or the best player on the team if he has a sub-par performance. We criticize the President and Congress, generals and governors, police officers and city council members, teachers and pastors, political parties and … the Church.

Am I saying we should shut up and dutifully toe the line when we have serious disagreements with any of these people? No. In all cases we need to be praying. In some, we have the responsibility stated in Scripture to go to individuals and confront them. Other times we need to state our points of disagreement publicly, for the sake of people who may be blind to the things we’re seeing.

But this last is tricky. How do we point the finger at others and say they need to do thus and so or refrain from this or that, without pointing the other three fingers back at ourselves? We can’t, and that fact ought to make those of us giving critiques, reviews, evaluations some pause. We ought to dole out a little honey with the sting, a little mercy with the judgment.

How much more so is this true when we’re talking about the Church! Yet there is a growing number of professing Christians who vilify the Bride of Christ, as if it is their right, even their responsibility … not to lovingly correct those in their immediate sphere of influence, but to condemn the institution as we know it, and by extension those who remain a part and a support of the institution.

As if only those who separate from the traditional church know what it means to be spiritual. Everyone still a part is too wrapped up in programs and lists of thou-shalt-nots and (horrors!) doctrine.

Here are some of the things I see regarding this current movement among professing Christians to disdain the Church:

Anyone rightfully giving criticism does so with construction in mind, not destruction. Can someone who has left the Church rightfully be said to have constructive goals?

Criticism sometimes puts the spotlight on the critic, in which case the goal seems self-centered, not redemptive or even corrective.

Disdaining the Church as a whole implies more knowledge and spiritual insight than all pastors, seminary teachers, Bible scholars, and lay leaders throughout the world.

I wonder. Is it too far fetched to think pride may be playing a part in this current movement against the Church from the ranks of professing Christians?

Just Criticism or Bashing?

One of the current fads seems to be church bashing. Or is it just (as in, fair and balanced) criticism?

Bashing or criticizing, whichever we decide it to be, has shown up in non-fiction, magazines, blogs, fiction. Some people say they are fed up with the church and opt to “drop out” of formalized religion. They are followers of Jesus, they say, and evidently that exempts them from “doing church.”

Curious, because I thought church was who we were, not what we did. Seems like I remember the Apostle Paul writing an analogy about the church and the body. We aren’t all feet, he said, because how could we then see? And we take special care of those who are weak.

Is that what’s happening when Christians hurl vindictive comments at the “failed institution”?

Let’s admit, the church is filled with sinners. Forgiven, yes. And in need of forgiveness. One of the sins we commit is pride, certainly, a particularly egregious sin the drop outs point to. You’ll find no argument from me. Pride is egregious. The church has prideful people. I know because I’m one.

But doesn’t that mean that we are the ones in need of special care? Care, in the form of loving confrontation and encouragement and forgiveness and counsel and discipleship and prayer. How can drop outs minister to those in the greatest need if they are out, not in? if they don’t know the needs of their weaker brothers and sisters? if they aren’t around to model humility as they imitate Christ?

Which makes me wonder if the criticism leveled at the church isn’t actually bashing. When was the last time you railed against your hand for dropping something? Or against your toe for stubbing itself on the end table. Well, idiot, you wouldn’t be throbbing in pain right now if you didn’t stick out so far or if you’d only LOOK where you were going. Why don’t you grow a pair of eyes, for goodness sake!

Interestingly, Paul, in I Thessalonians, calls the Christians he was writing to, “brethren beloved by God.” How would that phrase fit in with the criticism of the church today? Brethren beloved by God, I can’t stand what you’re doing on Sunday morning. Your formal worship is a mockery of what God intended. Your evangelistic efforts are cheesy. You don’t do half as much as you should to help the needy. Why don’t you get out of your safe little bubble you’ve created for yourself, brethren beloved by God?

How would that strike someone coming from a person on the outside?

Honestly, it reminds me a lot of the criticisms leveled against Christian fiction by readers who admit they haven’t read Christian fiction. In order to join the conversation, don’t you first have to be a part of the reading audience? Or the church-goers?

A final observation. It’s amazing how a person in Florida or St. Louis or Phoenix can make a judgment about the Church universal. I’ve read, for example, the church is doing the worst job of evangelizing in the history of the world! Do people who make these kinds of statements know what’s going on in Colorado or Illinois or Georgia, let alone what’s happening in China or Kenya or Bolivia?

So a person has a bad experience in church. Maybe in several churches. Do these experiences then override the counsel of Scripture and give a person the right to stop assembling with other believers? And if an individual stops assembling with other believers, is he giving just criticism of the body he’s left, or is he bashing his brothers and sisters when they need him most?

What are your thoughts?

Christian Fiction and the CSFF October Poll

If you came by on Friday looking for a post or the tour poll, I apologize for not having anything for you. More email problems, and by the time I gave up trying to fix my primary program, I had nothing to say worth saying in a blog post!

We’ve had good discussions over the last two posts, and I hesitate to move off the topic of Christian fiction. At the same time I don’t want to pulverize sand.

Here are a couple things I’d like to emphasize before moving on:

1. As long as Christians write fiction and/or Christian publishers publish fiction, we’ll probably have the debate about what constitutes a story written from a Christian point of view.

2. Fiction that relies on reality needs to be faithful to said reality. Consequently, if a story takes place in San Francisco 2009 and isn’t speculative, then there needs to be a Golden Gate Bridge, the city won’t be rebuilding after an earthquake flattened it, and Christian revival won’t be the cultural norm.

In the same way, unless there are speculative elements, documented historical events must remain in place. Abraham Lincoln can’t avoid assassination, England can’t defeat the American colonists, Hitler can’t be kept from power.

So too with Biblical events. What the Bible states unequivocally must be adhered to in fiction.

3. Fiction that speculates may imagine a world that is different from contemporary reality and historical reality and even spiritual reality as long as God is not besmirched. Satan, for example, can’t be shown as more powerful than God. God can’t be fragmented or shown as a thing or a force instead of a person.

4. Some truths should not come under speculation. I’m on somewhat shaky ground here and haven’t thought about this a lot, but I don’t think Christians should speculate about Salvation: What if God chose to save Man in some other way than sending His Son? I am confident we shouldn’t speculate about God’s character: What if God wasn’t good? This last could be written as irony I suppose, to prove the opposite.

But my point here is, some truths are more important than the freedom to speculate or to write a good story. I say frequently that story trumps all when it comes to fiction, but I believe that truth should trump story. Or more accurately, story should serve truth, and if it does not, then the story is off.

- – -

And now to our poll. Those bloggers eligible to win the October CSFF Top Blogger Award are the following:

√ √ √ Keanan Brand
√ √ √ Jason Joyner
√ √ √ Nissa
√ √ √ John W. Otte
√ √ √ Rachel Starr Thomson
√ √ √ Fred Warren