So what are some of the evangelical myths that could potentially start professing Christians on the road away from God and toward religious traditions that serve our greed and lust for power?

This first one author Morgan Busse addressed in her blog post today: “if I have enough faith, God will do it.” I’d even suggest we’ve taken this idea a step farther: if I have enough faith, God will HAVE to do it.

Certainly this idea of faith has its seeds in Scripture. In fact Jesus Himself said this to his disciples when they could not cast out a demon from a boy brought to them for that purpose:

Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not drive it out?” And He said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.” (Matt. 17:19-20)

Later Jesus said much the same to His disciples:

And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree [curse it so that it withered], but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” (Matt. 21:21-22)

Certainly, from those passages, the issue seems to be the faith the disciples had. It was all up to them. If they believed, they could have sent the demon away or cursed the fig tree, but they didn’t have enough faith–not even the size of the smallest seed, or else they could move mountains.

The problem is, this passage is not the only one that addresses faith or asking things of God. So here’s an important principle: one way that myths become established is when believers take passages of Scripture in isolation and believe them “literally.” While I believe the Bible to be true–each word and in total–I do not believe each word alone communicates the intent of the whole.

My favorite example is the passage in Psalm 14: “There is no God.” Yes, that’s what verse one says . . . in part. The intro is, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” What a difference putting the line in context makes.

So too the teaching of Scripture about faith and prayer. What we need to do is look at the various passages on these subjects together–things like God promising to give good gifts to His children (necessitating an understanding of what He means by “good”); saying if we “abide in Him,” and His words abide in us, we can ask whatever we wish and it will be done (necessitating an understanding of this “abiding”); and promising if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us (necessitating an understanding of “His will”).

In other words, these passages can’t be taken in isolation from their context or from one another. Prayer is NOT a vending machine–put in the appropriate amount of faith and out comes the answer; too little faith and the prayer machine gets stuck with nothing shooting into the retrieval slot.

In fact, one of the greatest passages about asking God for something comes from the man whose son had the demon the disciples couldn’t cast out:

But if You can do anything, take pity on us and help us!” And Jesus said to him, ” ‘If You can?’ All things are possible to him who believes. “Immediately the boy’s father cried out and said, “I do believe; help my unbelief.” (Mar 9:22b-24)

His great confession was that even belief comes from God–it’s not something he could generate on his own.

James adds a couple different pieces to the faith puzzle. First he said it was great for someone to say he believes in God, but the reality is, the demons also believe. So there’s obviously more to “belief” than a mental ascent.

Secondly, he addresses the issue of asking God for what we need: “You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive because you ask with wrong motives so that you may spend it on your pleasures” (see James 4:2b-3).

Certainly this look at faith and prayer is not exhaustive, but by reviewing the various promises, commands, and instruction in Scripture, I draw these conclusions: there is no prayer formula; God wishes to give His people good gifts, but we mistake what we think is good for what He thinks is good; believing God for the things we know to be His will should be our default prayer position.

Here’s my own personal conclusion: I don’t ask God for enough stuff or for big enough stuff–the things consistent with His will. I get wrapped up in “small ball,” the stuff that would make my life easier or more pleasant. And the myth is born.

I maintain that this position compares avocados and watermelons. The Pharisees were trying to work their way into God’s good graces, even as they rejected Jesus. Christians–if they are actual followers of Christ–have understood that our best efforts fall short of God’s glory and have instead accepted the work of Jesus at the cross.

Does the fact that Christians follow Jesus mean that we can then live as we please and do as we wish? Certainly not. The instruction in the New Testament is for Christians, which I think we sometimes lose sight of, at least here in America. Rather than concerning ourselves with all that the Bible says, we work to bring all of society into a godly lifestyle.

To an extent, this is not a bad thing. Christ’s teaching is life-changing, but the truth is, it’s possible to clean up the outside of the cup and leave the inside disgustingly dirty.

Jesus didn’t advocate scouring the inside and leaving the outside filthy, though. He said, essentially, clean the inside and the outside will take care of itself: “You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also” (Matt. 23:26).

Here’s what Jesus was really getting to:

“So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” (Matt. 24:28)

In other words, these words are directed at pretend Christians, or at religious people in other faiths that think doing a bunch of good deeds will put them in right standing with god or the universe or whatever it is they worship.

The outside can look all spiffy and clean. One reason Christians team up with Mormons in political matters, I believe, is that Mormons are so very moral. They are pro-life and pro-marriage, don’t drink or smoke or gamble, go to church, give to charities, and generally present a face of kindness.

Clean cups, at least on the outside.

Honestly, moderate Muslims are right there beside them. The women dress modestly, all are law-abiding, they worship regularly, they oppose homosexuality, drinking, and abortion.

I could say the same about any number of people of religion–they do many, many right things because in their belief system, they have to. The doing is their ticket to “God’s” good graces–whether that means enlightenment, nirvana, heaven, or another planet where they will rule.

Shockingly, atheists fall into this category, too. Their list of “right things” will differ from Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and pretend Christians, but they still have their list. Be tolerant of people who hold a different belief system than traditional Western culture, take care of the environment, avoid even the appearance of prejudice, speak only in a politically correct way, support gender equality, gay marriage, and labor unions.

The gods that the atheists are trying to please, of course, are themselves. They talk much about doing something meaningful for society and leaving a legacy.

Jesus said he didn’t come for the people who have these spiffed up outsides. Those folk see no need for Him because they believe it’s up to them. Either God expects them to measure up or they have to measure up to the standard they’ve set for themselves. So they busy themselves cleaning the outside of the cup, and when drink splatters, which it always does, they hurriedly wipe it away. When greasy fingers leave a smear, they wash and polish, until the outside shines.

All the while, germs roam free on the inside. They can hate and lust and covet to their heart’s content. They can doubt God and rail at Him, they can be disappointed and think He’s let them down or doesn’t really care or isn’t really there. Just so long as on the outside, no one knows.

Jesus said He came to heal, but only sick people need healing. The well send the physician away. Services not needed here–only healthy people on site.

But that attitude is indicative of the spiritually blind. All people have fallen short of God’s glory–His righteous standard, and the only standard that matters.

Children run races and win trophies, but how silly if they strutted around claiming to be the fastest runner in the world. They have measured themselves against themselves and decided they are the best. But if they were to measure themselves against the world record holder they would clearly, consistently, and always fall short.

So too with Man’s efforts, as soon as we measure ourselves against God’s holiness. We might shine the outside of our cup in an effort to fool ourselves and others that it is clean, but to kill the germs crawling around inside takes the touch of the Master, the work of Jesus, the healing of the One who came to save.

- – - – -

Once upon a time in a country far, far away, tucked into an isolated valley, there lived the Tsiehtas, a group of people who celebrating their four senses. They could see and hear and feel and taste, but when it came to smell . . . well, they regarded such a thing as a fantasy.

One day a visitor from neighboring Htiaf arrived in the valley. He admired the quaint cottages and well-kept lawns and beautiful gardens. But when he stopped beside a rose bush and pressed his nose to a blossom, a smile came over his face.

“This is the most fragrant flower I’ve ever found,” he said. “You have a real treasure in your valley.”

The Tsiehtas looked at the visitor suspiciously. “No offense, sir,” said the lord high counselor, “but there is no such thing as ‘fragrant.’ Certainly we appreciate the beauty of the blossoms, and for that reason we treasure our roses.”

“No fragrance? Of course there’s a fragrance. A sweet, rich scent that lingers even after I move to another part of the garden.”

“Ha-ha! You have a rich imagination … unless you are trying to intentionally propagate deception.”

A crowd begin to gather.

The visitor raised his voice. “Please believe me. I’m not making this up. The scent is so strong it overpowers that of the newly cut grass.”

“You think grass has a scent, too?” the lord high counselor said.

The crowd laughed, but one small boy dropped to his knees and buried his face in the grass. “I do think I smell something,” came his muffled voice.

“Nonsense and fairy tales. We have no evidence that ‘scent’ exists,” said the lord high counselor. “Show me this fragrance you speak of.”

“How can I show you that which is invisible?”

“And how can we believe in something without any proof?”

“I’m your proof! And so is my young friend here.” The visitor patted the little boy’s shoulder. “The fact that we can smell these scents is evidence they exist.”

“Hardly. Another visitor might arrive tomorrow and tell us the sun smells disgusting. Should we believe him, too?”

The visitor turned toward the youth on his knees in the grass. “What about this boy, one of your own?”

“You said yourself–he’s a boy. He’ll outgrow his fantasy like the rest of us did.”

“Are you saying you used to believe you could smell?”

“Ha-ha, of course not. It was a childish phase. We soon learned to depend on our eyes and ears, our taste and touch. Those are the things that are reliable. Why this fragrance you speak of, you admit you don’t smell it consistently.”

“Of course not. Scent is carried on the wind and it might be stronger depending on where you’re standing.”

The lord high counselor frowned. “Now you’re just making things up. You have no proof, no facts, just a myth you’re trying to foist on the rest of us. I think it’s time you leave.”

Sadly the visitor from Htiaf turned away. “How can I convince the Tsiehtas scent is real when they won’t believe what I’m telling them? What would it take to get their smell receptors working again?”

Apparently I was wrong about her definition. She meant that God was wrong for punishing the unrighteous.

There are indeed those in the world who think God errors because He judges sin. His wrath, then, isn’t acceptable in any form. There simply isn’t room for a god who doesn’t bend his will toward making life better for the universe. Only if he did so, in this view, would he be a benevolent god.

And clearly, so these thinkers say, the God of the Old Testament is not benevolent.

I agree with this conclusion. The God of the Old Testament, who happens to be the same as the God of the New Testament, is not benevolent by those standards. The Oxford English Dictionary defines benevolent as “well meaning and kindly.” Ah, but as C. S. Lewis reminds us, God is good, not simply well meaning and kindly.

God does not “mean well” in the sense that He’s hoping for the best and trying to help and aiming for what’s good. NO! God is good, does good, brings about good. But good is defined on His terms.

I can say it would be good for me to sell my book for a million dollars. But my understanding of good is limited and finite. I don’t know if a million dollars would make me happy or angry at people who I perceive as trying to leech off me once I got some cash. I don’t know if a million dollars would change my perspective so much that I’d stop doing things of value like writing blog posts and doing freelance editing. I don’t know if a million dollars would make me more prideful, self-centered, and egotistical that I’d lose all my friends. And most importantly, I don’t know if a million dollars would become my idol, if I would worship it in God’s place.

God knows these things, however, and may, for my benefit here and now, in this life, prevent me from getting a million dollars. I also have no doubt that God could give me a million dollars if that were truly for my good–if it would bring me closer to Him, cause me to serve Him more truly, make me conform more closely to the image of His Son. What’s a million dollars to the Owner of the cosmos?

But He withholds what would harm His people in the same way that a good parent doesn’t give a three-year-old candy for breakfast just because she asks. God knows better than we do what is truly good.

God Himself is good, so we can conclude that His judgment is good as well. When He says, the wages of sin is death, that’s not an arbitrary judgment–that’s the testimony of an all knowing Creator. Much the way that a policeman might point to a sign and say, this is a handicap parking zone; you’ll get a ticket if you park here, God has made plain what disobeying His righteous standards will cost.

Someone who didn’t know what the handicap parking sign meant would be grateful that the policeman told him. They wouldn’t rail against him because he didn’t tear the sign down and let them park in the specially marked spot, and they certainly wouldn’t ignore the warning and park there right under the watchful eye of the policeman.

But that’s what many people want of God–that He would ignore justice for them. Of course, few want Him to ignore justice for those they consider enemies, but they reserve their idea of His benevolence based on how He treats them.

Jesus told an interesting story about a man who thought much as these people do. He owed a debt so great he could never manage to pay it back in his life time–the equivalent would be millions of dollars. His creditor said all the man owned would have to be sold and he himself would go into servitude until he paid his debt. The man begged for more time. The creditor had compassion on him but instead of giving him more time to pay, which was really an impossibility, he forgave him the entire debt.

The man left and immediately ran into a fellow worker who owed him the equivalent of about ten thousand dollars. The man grabbed his co-worker and demanded that he pay up or he’d have to sell everything he owned and go into servitude himself until the debt was paid. The co-worker begged for more time, but the man refused.

A bunch of other workers saw what happened and told the man’s creditor. And this is how the story ends:

Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. (Matt 18:32-34)

Was the creditor in the wrong because he didn’t treat the man in a benevolent way? Of course not. He had in fact canceled the man’s debt. It was the man himself who wasn’t benevolent, who didn’t understand what receiving a gift of forgiveness actually meant.

So, no, God is not benevolent in the way the people of today want Him to be. He doesn’t tear up the ticket we deserve. Rather, He paid it for us. The point isn’t to get us off so we can go pile up more debt. The point is to change our status from debter, to adopted child; it is to give us an inheritance far richer than any we can imagine.

Recently Sci-fi author Nancy Fulda, a Hugo and Nebula nominee, expressed the pressure she feels to keep her religious beliefs to herself:

I’m talking about feelings of rejection because of who we are and what we believe, independent of any specific actions we have taken. Feelings of invalidation and dehumanization. Fear of being ridiculed or publicly dogpiled if we allow our religious affiliations to be known. “Sci fi writers feel ridicule over religion”

I have no way of knowing if Ms. Fulda is a Christian or not. She could be Buddhist for all I know, but certainly what she expressed about her faith applies to Christians. More than once I’ve read in Internet discussion that Christians are stupid, believe a fantasy, have no business basing their voting decisions on their religion (supposedly this would be an attempt to legislate morality), and any number of other dismissive statements, including the idea that novelists shouldn’t put religious beliefs in their fiction.

Here are a few sample Kindle reviews of a couple not so recent novels:

* “I’m getting bored with these religious freebies on Kindle… The author has limited linguistic finesse and an even lesser ability to plot and pace the story, which quite frankly, is very poor.”

* “some religous zelouts give religion a bad name with stunts like this. this author has a fish bumper sticker on his car because he hasnt got the guts to admit his own faith up front.”

* “I’m all for people believing whatever they want to believe, but don’t try to sell your beliefs to me by pretending your book is a fiction novel.”

* “This is the second fantasy novel I downloaded not knowing the authors were Christian writers. I have no issue with faith based novels – I simply do not wish to read them (I have my own faith, thank you very much). Readers ought to be given the choice. “

Perhaps the problem is in the execution, but a number of these reviewers seemed to find strong Christianity in a novel to be an affront. And yet, time and again we see other worldviews displayed in fiction–whether in novels or on TV or in movies–with no complaints.

But I mentioned feeling pinched. On the other side, squeezing inward are professing Christians who accuse Bible believing Christians of being legalistic for no other reason than that we believe the whole Bible as opposed to picking and choosing the parts we prefer. Somehow a “progressive” approach is viewed as smarter, more compassionate, and more godly

Generally these people claim some kind of higher ground, professing that belief has evolved, that their understanding of god is not shackled by an outdated book, and therefore is more true because it is their own understanding, their own experience.

So on one hand, secularists want Bible believers to shut up and sit down, and on the other, professing Christians with a “progressive” bent want Bible believers to shut up and sit down.

Well, that gives us lots of options!

I don’t think Bible believers need to be offensive in the way we proceed, but I don’t think being pinched should stop us from saying what we believe or writing what we believe. Scripture says the good news about Jesus Christ will be offensive to those who disbelieve. But at the same time, Peter writes in his first letter that we are not be be guilty of wrong doing–not even of being a “troublesome meddler.” But if we suffer as Christians we are not to be ashamed but are to “glorify God in that name” (see 1 Peter 4).

The thing is, the more Bible believers are pinched, the narrower the road on which we walk. And the narrower the road, the trickier the balancing act we must do.

I don’t think it’s something we need to whine about or even necessarily try to change. It seems to me to be the fulfillment of the conditions described for the Church in the Bible.

But I do think a narrow road, a tight rope extended over treacherous terrain, requires more. More faith, more dependence on God, more humility, more trust, more reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit, more prayer, more understanding of God’s power perfected in weakness.

If that’s where the Bible believer is going in the twenty-first century, I’d have to say, it’s a pretty good place.

Here’s the description of the book:

“She Will Take
Your Own Two Hands
To Save Your Ancient,
Sorrowing Lands.”

By her father’s wish, Lady Daylily is betrothed to the Prince of Southlands. Not the prince she loves, handsome and dispossessed Lionheart, but his cousin, the awkward and foolish Prince Foxbrush. Unable to bear the future she sees as her wedding day dawns, Daylily flees into the dangerous Wilderlands, her only desire to vanish from living memory.

But Foxbrush, determined to rescue his betrothed, pursues Daylily into a new world of magic and peril, a world where vicious Faerie beasts hold sway, a world invaded by a lethal fey parasite . . .

A world that is hauntingly familiar.

And now, you have a chance to win a cool prize in conjunction with this cover reveal–a Tales of Goldstone Wood mug with this banner on it.

All you need to do is click on the link below and sign up with Rafflecopter.

a Rafflecopter giveaway

Also, be sure to check out the cool new Shadow Hand blog site where you can find some added fun!

I was curious where the responses to this article went, but the website proprietors closed comments which also apparently hid them. In the sidebar was another article that I thought might explore a similar subject, this one entitled “Why I Am A Darwinist–Mary Catherine Watson.” In similar fashion to the writer who lost her faith, Ms. Watson came to her belief in Darwinism through exposure to it after growing up with a creationist education: “I took AP Biology and found myself convinced that evolution made more sense in explaining the world around me than did the Bible.”

The irony is, I grew up with evolution, the Big Bang theory, Darwinism, taught in school as if there were no other possible answers. But I also grew up going to church where I learned the Bible was God’s authoritative Word, His revelation. Consequently, my experience was quite different from Ms. Watson’s.

From her study, she concluded, “And no, it is highly unlikely that every scientist is simultaneously deluded by this theory. Science is one of the most intellectually intense fields of profession around, and its workers have some of the highest IQs, they are not that naïve.” From my study, I concluded God who is omniscient, the Creator of all those high IQs, revealed that which only He could know with certainty.

Ms. Watson says she went to the Bible and found more questions. She admits evolution doesn’t answer all questions either but concluded, “in light of all the information I’ve come across from both sides, it seems to me to be the more logical option.”

On the other hand, I went to the Bible and found more and more facts that made the big picture come together in a logical whole.

Ms. Watson changed her opinions in part because of her questions about the flood recorded in Scripture.

such a flood would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 8640 inches per day–for 40 days and nights–so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest (the tallest mountain) under 22 ft. (15 cubits) of water, made me think again. That is a lot of water, where did it come from, and where did it go?

Her study of Scripture seems to be less complete than her math computations. According to the Biblical record of creation, there was a considerable amount of water:

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters . . . Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. (Gen 1:2, 6-9)

Then in the account of the flood, this:

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. (Gen 7:11-12)

In other words, this was not the typical modern day rain storm we’re familiar with.

But therein lies the divide between people like Ms. Watson and people like me–when the Bible records something that is outside my experience, I don’t conclude it was fabricated, mythologized, or inaccurate. I believe it is outside my experience and today’s scientific observation because things were different from what the scientists assume. And clearly, assumption plays a huge part in “observing” what transpired thousands of years ago.

The bottom line is this: Ms. Watson and the anonymous “lost her faith” writer read the same science I read and studied, read the same Bible I read, and yet we have arrived at vastly different places. I am far from thinking that I know all the details about creation, but I’m pretty confident that the scientists who deny a Creator have made a serious error. If you start with a wrong hypothesis, it’s pretty hard to believe that you are drawing closer to the truth as you persist with that line of reasoning.

In the end, I’ll take the word of omniscient, eternal God over finite, limited Man when it comes to the origins of the cosmos. After all, without God’s revelation, we’re trying to follow a bread crumb trail back to the first cause. As Hansel and Gretel discovered, bread crumbs aren’t so reliable.

It’s interesting and I think a good one for those who don’t believe in God to think about. But for those of us who do believe in God . . . Well, I should just let you experience it. Tell me what you think.

Is that idea the same as saying no one inside or out of the Church should criticize it, that readers ought not critique Christian fiction?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “bash” figuratively to mean “criticize severely.” The question, then, seems to be, what qualifies as “severe”? OED thesaurus gives some great synonym suggestions, but instead of simply listing them, I want to give my thoughts on what qualifies as bashing. Others may have a different take on the term, and that’s fine. For me someone is bashing when the criticism

* becomes personal (e.g. the author is shallow; the pastor of that church is hateful)

* generalizes (e.g. Christian fiction is shallow; Christians are hateful)

* exists for itself, either to make the writer look clever or to curry favor with potential readers. The opposite would be to give constructive evaluation that could help the writer/church or that is intended to warn away potential readers/church-goers from something harmful. (e.g. “Christian fiction is nothing but Amish romance”; Why Men Hate Going to Church or 52 Lies Heard in Church Every Sunday)

* is based on rumors and not facts (e.g. Christian fiction doesn’t engage the culture; Christians are hypocritical)

* jumps on bandwagons (e.g. “I don’t read Christian fiction because it’s so poorly written”; “I don’t need to go to church when I can worship God just as well at the beach”)

* becomes angry or insulting (e.g. nobody in his right mind reads that stuff; nobody in his right mind would go to that church)

* questions the integrity of others without foundation (e.g. they’re just doing it for the money [applied equally to the writing industry and churches])

* parrots others (e.g. Christian fiction is preachy; Christians must like fantasy because their bible is full of it)

* doesn’t let up. OED calls this “railing against” something or “complain or protest strongly and persistently about” something. (e.g. Christian fiction isn’t realistic because it doesn’t allow curse words; Christians are homophobic)

The bottom line is, criticism is not wrong. Constructive criticism can be helpful. Authors join critique groups or employ beta readers on purpose to receive feedback that tells them what’s wrong with their manuscript. Churches have any number of ways of receiving feedback too–all designed to help the group improve and flourish.

I wouldn’t write reviews if I didn’t have the freedom to point out weaknesses or to narrow my recommendation to the group of readers I think would enjoy a book. If I had to lavish praise all the time and make recommendations to everyone, then why bother? Reviews are designed to help, but they often contain criticism.

So criticism isn’t the problem. Criticism is different from severe criticism. And my guess is, most of us know bashing when we hear it or read it, but for some reason, we let it slide, maybe even join in (yep, I hate to admit it, but I’ve been there, done that).

I’ve singled out tearing down the Church and bashing Christian fiction, but I suspect this whole bashing thing might be a problem, containing the seeds of bullying. But perhaps that’s a post for another day.

What are your thoughts on the difference between bashing and criticizing? What did I leave out?

Another element postmodernism responds to is Story.

As an aside, I have to say, I marvel at how God has provided for each culture, implanting in His Word and by His plan something that will speak to disparate groups of people down through the ages.

The greatest Story, of course, is the Bible, but rationalism and higher criticism discredited the Bible in the eyes of many so that even a good number of people who identify as Christian don’t believe the claims of the Bible.

Jesus Himself taught in parables, and these, postmoderns seem to embrace, but in some ways that’s not good since a number want to take Jesus (a distorted or “re-imaged” version of Him) and pit Him against the “wrathful, vengeful” God of the Old Testament.

Which brings us to extra-Biblical stories, ones created by believers. I’m thinking primarily of Christian fiction, though a growing number of believers are publishing stories in the general market without any attempt to “reach the lost.”

In the Christian writing community there continues to be conversation about the place of Christian fiction in the culture. Some label it as preachy, and worse, “preaching to the choir.” Many decry its inability to reach the culture at large because it’s shut up in the ghetto of Christian bookstores or on shelves reserved for Christian fiction.

Others lambaste Christian fiction because of its artlessness. First it was poorly written, then shallow. Now it is lacking in ambiguity–apparently an element of true art.

The critics of Christian fiction might take the position that it is a tool of the devil because it deceives. It first packages the gospel message as a story–so that’s deceptive. But it also gives the impression that every problem has an answer and ever conflict has a happy ending. The truth is that godly people die of cancer before they turn fifteen, become quadriplegics at seventeen, have their spouse kidnapped and (presumably) murdered in their first year of marriage, and more, so much more. Real life doesn’t turn out the same as the sugar-coated lives of the protagonists in Christian fiction. And all the squeaky-clean stories isolate Christian fiction from the very culture the authors say they want to reach. Or so the argument goes.

The proponents for Christian fiction, however, point to the inclusion of stories with a wide range of culturally relevant scenarios and themes. Novels have addressed abuse, sex trafficking, infidelity, and any number of other topics (I just recently read a book in which the protagonist dealt with alcoholism). Others decry the demand for ambiguity as a whitewash of the heart of Christianity–hope and redemption. An extrapolation of this position would seem to say, pretending that there are no answers is a lie from Satan.

So which is it–Christian fiction is a tool of Satan’s or Christian fiction bashing is a tool of Satan’s?

The thing is, Christian authors published by traditional Evangelical publishing houses have letters from readers telling how their lives have been changed by the stories they read–the Christian fiction stories written by these “CBA” authors. If God is using these stories, I wonder, then, at the validity of the criticism.

Can Christian fiction do better? Undoubtedly, but I think it’s growing and changing to meet the changing times, particularly as publishing goes through the technological revolution it’s presently experiencing.

Bashing brothers and sisters in Christ who are having an impact on others certainly seems like a counter productive move. That such bashing reinforces a false stereotype about Christian fiction is potentially harmful–certainly something Satan can use. Remember, he is a liar and the Father of lies. He’d love people to run screaming away from any title labeled “Christian fiction.” If, on the other hand, it was a tool he could use, it would seem he would love just the opposite.