Yellow House News

Reading, Meditation, and Christian Writing

2012-01-24T18:17:00.000-08:00

I suppose I am like a lot of Christians. I have a hard time keeping a regular, habitual practice of reading the Bible. Why is that so? I am a seminary graduate (Westminster Theological Seminary, MDiv, 1979) and if anyone should have regular Bible reading down by now it should be a seminary student.

The typical excuses I find cropping up with me - too rushed, not always convenient, too many other things that need to get done, etc., etc. Yet I do like to read, all topics and a variety of genre. I can sit for hours and persist in a novel. Biblical and theological books can hold my attention for a long time as well, even some of the heavier ones. But I find trouble devoting the same amount of time for the Bible, that is, to sit down and read, and read persistently!

I think, for me, the biggest problem, which should also be the biggest motivation (and it is) is that the Bible is not just another book. It is the inscripturated Word of God, the means by which God speaks to us today. It must be read carefully, prayerfully, meditatively. I don't do that with a novel, and the only time in which I come within a mile of doing so is if the novel is written in such a way that the great truths of the Bible are profoundly exposited either in the narrative, character(s), or action. Not many novels, even so-called Christian novels, are like that.

This reveals the first obstacle to persistent Bible reading. It is not easy because it is not entertaining. A contrast: The Harry Potter books. The ingenuity of J K Rowling and her superb writing ability (true, she doesn’t write in the same style as J R R Tolkien, but I would place her skill side by side with his) provided a series of books whose entertainment value, for me, has few equals. The Wingfeather Saga, by Andrew Peterson, is another. The latter is considered Christian fantasy while the former is not. Now I think the latter qualifies as Christian fantasy only in an anemic way, that is, it does not bring out the gospel prominently and forcefully. And whether that is good or bad is another question and deserving of an article in itself. But it is fascinatingly entertaining, far more so, and far better written than any other young adult (children’s) fantasy of the last dozen years or more. I love to read them (Rowling and Peterson) because they entertain and captivate; I find myself in the middle of the story, like a holodeck.

Not so the Bible. The closest I come to encountering such an experience are in the historical books of the Old Testament, the gospels, and Acts. Yet, these do not have the entertaining power and sway as do the modern day examples I mentioned above. Which leads to the second reason why it is so hard to read the Bible.

The Bible requires work, even the easier historical narratives. The work is this: I am a Christian and as such I want to understand what God is saying through the pages of Scripture in such a way that it changes me. I want it to make me pursue holiness and seek first the Kingdom of God. I want it to change my heart so that I love as I ought. I want to get a glimpse of the glory of God, and be transformed by it. To do that, I have to read the Bible carefully, even meticulously so that I get the meaning right. If I don’t understand what the plain words of the Bible are saying through the logical and grammatical construction that they come in, even the Spirit of God cannot help me. So, when I read the Bible, I do it slowly and carefully, making sure that I understand what it is saying. If I have to, I’ll stop, think about it (sometimes for a long time) consult a commentary or a sermon if available, check it out in the original language (again, if available), and then move on. Sometimes it takes me days to get through a handful of verses. Some passages, I keep coming back to time after time, still trying to sort out the meaning of it. It’s hard work, and hardly ever fun.

When I ponder (meditate) on Psalm 1, often I am convicted:

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night.

I confess, I do not go through the process I described above day and night. If I did I would neglect other things that I, as a Christian, ought not to neglect. But here is what I do find. The Scriptures follow me. After having painstakingly worked through a biblical text, I find that it keeps interjecting itself into my mind while I am away from it. Sometimes it comes in a verbatim recollection, more often in a paraphrased truth that is succinct and apropos. Often, I wish it were more often than not, without trying, I am analyzing my situation or a situation that affects me or others important to me, and I am doing it from a perspective that comes from the remembrance of scripture. In other words, I am thinking, meditating, applying the scriptures without their being open before my physical eyes. I think this is as much as what is meant by meditation as the traditional understanding.

Psalm 1 is one of those passages that I return to time after time, and the meaning of that word meditation is something that I am still working on, not merely a sterile definition of it but a flesh and bones experience of it. What does it mean for me (or anyone, David included) to meditate on the Law of God? It is important because it is the means by which I am going to prosper in this life; and to prosper (another word of the passage), I think, means to prosper in holy and godly living not in material things (the context of the first verse establishes that). In other words, my spiritual well-being and progress is directly related to a proper understanding of meditation and a proper practice of it, both in the immediate contact with the written page, and also in the mediate recollection of it as I confront daily life.

In light of all this, and harking back to the anemia of much of our Christian writing, it is better (though not an absolute requirement by God) if the Christian writer takes on the role of not only entertainer but also expositor. Entertain by all means, but in the doing of it, teach, so that the product of his pen analogously follows the profitability of scripture which is 'profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness,' 2 Tim 3:16.

October 2011 CSFF Blog Tour, Day Three

2011-10-25T21:48:00.000-07:00

The Bone House, by Stephen R. Lawhead

I ordinarily do not read the postings of others on the CSFF blog tour until the tour is over. That is so that my postings remain as original and unaffected by the other participants as possible. However, this time I have read a few, and there is one that has encouraged me to consider the absence of God in The Bone House.

In other blogs for the tour, as well other postings on my blog, I have contended that Christian fiction/fantasy is not Christian unless it conveys in a pointed way at least some elements of the Gospel. To be clear, my theological persuasion is reformed and therefore I hold to what are known as the five points of Calvinism succinctly stated in the acronym, TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints). I have no doubt there are many CSFF blog tour participants who disagree with at least one of these points, and my intent is not to go into an exposition of these, or begin a dialogue over them. I only want to clarify that I believe the five points of Calvinism are biblically sound and represent the true gospel found in the scriptures. As such, when I hold that Christian fiction/fantasy should convey at least some elements of the gospel, these five points are what I have in mind primarily.

I think I am ready to refine my position on this as follows. Christian fiction/fantasy is of two fundamental types: anemic and robust. Anemic Christian fiction will contain elements that comport with a bona fide Christian world-view, that there is a God who is gracious and merciful and saves sinners. But these elements are not stringently Calvinistic nor are they dominant. Robust Christian fiction leaves no doubt of the fundamental truths of the Gospel, that God sovereignly saves a people for himself and for his glory through the death and resurrection of Christ applied through the work of the Spirit without which none of his people would recognize their sinfulness and need of salvation, and henceforth repent and trust in Christ to save them from their sin.

If we look at most so-called Christian fiction today under the robust lens, we find little that qualifies as Christian. On the other hand, there is much that qualifies anemically. Where does The Bone House stand? In one of my posts for The Skin Map tour, which I hope the reader might take the time to consult, I make the following observation after advocating that "Christian fantasy is only ‘Christian’ if it centers on and flows out of the gospel:"

Where does The Skin Map fit? It is entertaining, to be sure. However, the gospel is absent and as such, disqualifies it as ‘Christian.’ I say this because there is no mention of the bad news that must become painfully obvious before the good news will make any sense - and that bad news is the sinfulness of man, which merits God’s wrath.

On the other hand, a novel written by a Christian, but which does not qualify as ‘Christian’ is not wrong. I wrote:

I think so long as a story’s purpose is not to promote a non-Christian epistemological and ontological philosophy, though it may be heavily laced with such philosophy, it is not wrong. Though a fiction or fantasy takes place in a world that is non-biblical, that does not mean that it is by definition wrong. So long as it is clear that the intent of the story is not to promote such a world-view, it is not a dishonor to God. Such tales whose sole purpose is to entertain likewise reflect the creativity of man as image-bearer of God, and the entertainment itself may be viewed as a gift from God for his people to enjoy.

As far as I can tell, Stephen Lawhead is not trying to promote a non-biblical worldview, and, as I observed then:

I want to be fair, however. The Skin Map is book one in the Bright Empires series. The series as a whole may prove to be very Christian even though one or more of the books in the series would not be classified as such.

We now have book two of the series, and there is no noticeable effort on Lawhead’s part to bring in the salient points of the Gospel. What if this persists until the series is finished? I would have mixed thoughts. On the one hand, I can recognize quality when I see it, and the Bright Empires series thus far ranks very high both for the story and for the writing itself, which in my estimation are of equal importance. On the other hand, as a writer of Christian fiction and fantasy, and as a supporter of it, I would like to see quality like this also be true to what makes Christian fiction, Christian. The combination of the two would be powerful, and all things considered, would have a greater impact for the Kingdom.

That is why I am so adamant in pressing for a stringent definition of Christian fiction. I want the genre to distinguish itself precisely where it needs to the most, in the gospel. This can be done without being preachy or soppy. It allows the specially talented Christian writer to pursue an evangelistic and apologetic labor in a way that very few are capable of doing. Such writers and writing is needed, and I find it disheartening that those who could do a superb job are not doing so.

And yet, I don’t want to disparage such writers either. Writing, for whatever purpose, if done consciously as a labor to and for God, is pleasing to God. If Bright Empires is such a labor, I cannot complain. It is worthy and God-honoring entertainment. But I will be disappointed if it does no more than entertain.

Stephen R. Lawhead's Web Page
List of CSFF Blog Tour Participants
The Bone House on Amazon

Thanks to Thomas Nelson for kindly providing a copy of The Bone House for review on the October, 2011 Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

CSFF Blog Tour - October, 2011, Day Two

2011-10-24T21:19:00.000-07:00

The Bone House, by Stephen R. Lawhead

Stephen Lawhead includes a short excursus at the end of his book titled, “Quantum Physics and Me.” In it, he comments on Thomas Young, a 19th century scholar who has a significant role in this second book. Thomas Young was truly a phenom of his day, of any day for that matter. Would that I had a tenth of the brain he did.

Young proved light had the characteristics of a wave, which countered Isaac Newton’s prevailing theory that it was a particle.

It was an experiment of classical simplicity. He [Young] made a small hole in a blind and placed it so sunlight would pass through onto a card with two pin holes. The light from the pin holes formed an image on a screen behind in a series of curved bands. This was proof that light had acted wavelike and had spread out or defracted. If light had been a particle stream then only two spots of light would have appeared on the screen. [1]

In another experiment, Young proves how the eye focuses:

At the time, there was considerable dispute on whether the eye focused through the cornea or the crystalline lens. Young reasoned that if the eye is immersed in water, we no longer see clearly because there is liquid both inside and outside the cornea and it ceases to function as a lens. He found that if he placed a lens of equal power to the cornea in front of his eye he could see clearly under water. By this very simple experiment he had proved conclusively that it must be the crystalline lens that does the focusing. [2]

What is so remarkable is the simplicity of these experiments; so simple, they could be performed by any one of us. The lack of modern day technology did not stop men like Young who not only evidenced their genius by their ability to contemplate and deduce, but also to demonstrate it so that the man on the street can understand the principle through an experiment that uses equipment he is perfectly familiar with. I suspect that all men of such great genius are able to do that. Einstein is reputed to have said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." Not sure about that, but I get the point. We should strive to reduce demonstration to its most simple elements without destroying its ability to demonstrate.

The novelist to some degree or another is faced with the same problem. Not that he is necessarily trying to prove or disprove something, but he is trying to make a point. If there is no point behind the novel, I’m not sure it is worth writing, and I’m definitely sure it is not worth reading.

I’m referring to something more profound than the simple point to entertain. Certainly, entertainment is an element that every novel must have, but that is not the point of the novel. Its point is to convey an insight about something the reader has an interest in.

What does The Bone House do in this regard? Well, for one it brings to life Dr. Thomas Young and places him in a believable situation. By believable I mean, as an example, he is engaged in archaeological work, which is an enterprise that can be believed in. Granted, the object of search is a thing of fantasy, but the endeavor to find it is believable. What Stephen Lawhead has done for us is to make it a point to flesh that out with as much authenticity as possible so that we get a feel for what is involved without being bored with mundane detail.

I think this was accomplished with the movie, Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark. I was so awed by the movie that I saw it on the silver screen eight times before it went to the second-run theaters. The romantic element, that is, the notion of an intellectual with a PhD taking on the quest for the fantastic and elusive in the context of pending world war was irresistible. But it wasn’t just the romance. It was the raw truth that there is discoverable stuff out there to be discovered. I suspect this planted a seed in some scientists today who may look back on that film as the point where their journey began.

This was the experience of Carl Sagan, who devoured science fiction early on. At the age of ten he read Edgar Rice Burroughs' The Princess of Mars. I'm not claiming a one-to-one correspondence between me and Sagan, but I read Burroughs’ novel The Gods of Mars at age eleven. Obviously, either Burrough’s stories didn’t have the same impact on me as it did Sagan, or I didn’t have the intellectual prowess of Sagan; most likely, both are true. Sagan did become dissatisfied with the science fiction of his youth because much of it was written with disregard to actual science. I suspect that his novel, Contact, was written not only to make the point that extraterrestrial intelligent beings plausibly exist, but also to rectify a trend in science fiction which ignored science.

Stephen Lawhead has devoted time to making his story authentic by not ignoring the science that is behind archaeology and even the fringe speculation of ley travel (that is, the concept of more than one universe). Rather, he exploits it liberally. One has to tip his hat.

[1] Paul Riddell Tribute to Thomas Young

[2] ibid.

Stephen R. Lawhead's Web Page
List of CSFF Blog Tour Participants
The Bone House on Amazon

Thanks to Thomas Nelson for kindly providing a copy of The Bone House for review on the October, 2011 Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

CSFF Blog Tour - October, 2011, Day One

2011-10-24T08:15:00.000-07:00

The Bone House, by Stephen R. Lawhead

Warning: This is a complete spoiler.

If one tended to think the first book of the Bright Empires Series (The Skin Map) was convoluted, he will undoubtedly think the same of the second book, The Bone House. Like The Skin Map, the explanation for this tortuous route through the novel in part is due to the nature of ley travel, if it were true, of course. In fact, the way the book is laid out, vacillating between alternate space and time locales as it does, the reader gains a sense of what the world of ley travel would actually be like. I found it both distracting and tantalizing at the same time. I would not change it.

The best way to relate the story may be to follow threads separately, which requires one to move in a non-sequential manner through the chapters. Here is my attempt to do that.

Kit Livingston

Kit and Giles (Lord Henry’s coachman) are rescued by Wilhelmina from the tomb of Anen in Egypt. (Wilhelmina was Kit’s former girlfriend in the here and now, whom Kit unwittingly sent into 17^th Century Prague via a ley jump that went horribly wrong as related in The Skin Map). Wilhelmina (also known as Mina) directs Kit to split up; he is to ley travel to Luxor, Egypt of another time and pick up a package at the Winter Palace Hotel. Kit departs not knowing where Wilhelmina and Giles have gone. Mina promises to catch up with Kit.

Kit arrives at Luxor, finds the hotel and obtains the package. A note, handwritten by Wilhelmina directs him not to open the package but to take it to Dr. Thomas Young who, in Wilhelmina’s own words, is ‘the last man in the world who knows everything.’ An old Egyptian guides Kit to Dr. Young’s work site. Kit presents the package to Young who opens it to find articles that prove Wilhelmina’s claim to be a traveler from another time.

Wilhelmina and Giles

Before ever ley traveling to

Egypt

, Wilhelmina learned the art through trial and error and a device built by the emperor’s assistant alchemist (whom Wilhelmina has befriended) who said it was for ‘astral exploration.’ Wilhelmina called it the ‘ley lamp.’ It was a stone with blue lights and a dial; the blue lights lit up and became brighter as she neared an active ley line. In time, Wilhelmina became very good and accurate in ley travel.

After leaving Kit in Egypt, Wilhelmina and Giles ley travel to Edinburgh, Scotland where she visits Dr. Thomas Young and speaks of the tomb of Anen, which the doctor, the world’s leading authority on

Egypt

, informs there is no such tomb. Wilhelmina reveals the scholar will yet discover it; she knows – she is from his future.

After apparently informing Dr. Young of Kit’s pending visit, she and Giles ley travel back to Prague and her coffee house, and to her good friend and baker, Etzel. There she learns from a downcast Gustavus Rosenkreuz (the assistant alchemist) that he is directed to drop all his work for the sake of building another device for astral exploration; this one is better. Again, Gustavus promises to make a device for Wilhelmina.

Wilhelmina and Giles ley travel to

Egypt

and the site of Dr. Young’s excavation of Anen’s tomb. Kit assists Wilhelmina’s inspection of the tomb where they discover figures indicating Arthur Flinders-Petrie, known as The Man Who Is Map, i.e., the one who had the symbols that aided in mapping ley travel tattooed onto his upper torso. They also discern that the skin map must have been divided up in such a way as not to destroy any of its symbols. Having seen all this, Wilhelmina, Giles, and Kit return to Prague, 1607, where Wilhelmina’s coffee house and importing ventures are flourishing.

Wilhelmina, Kit, and Giles

While in the coffee house, Haven Fayth (Lord Henry Fayth’s niece, who seemingly betrayed Kit and Giles at Anen’s tomb and departed with Lord Burleigh) comes in. Lady Fayth sternly warns them to leave as Burleigh is in town (he is the one who has instigated the building of the ‘astral exploration’ device). There is distrust toward her, but Wilhelmina deems it wise for Kit and Giles to hide upstairs and later to leave in stealth, accompanied by Wilhelmina. However, Burley men discover their attempt to escape, alerting Lord Burleigh and giving chase. Wilhelmina gives Kit the ley lamp and sends both him and Giles running to escape by a ley line not far away. Kit escapes on Burleigh’s horse (who has been thrown off) and barely makes it to the ley line and escapes. Burleigh has wounded Giles with a gunshot. Wilhelmina, with the help of Lady Fayth, retrieves Giles from Burleigh and nurses him at the coffee house. Her intent is to send him ‘home.’

Kit Livingston (again)

After his escape from Lord Burleigh, Kit finds himself in a prehistoric era and encounters ‘primitives,’ i.e., cave dwellers, who take him into their company. Over time, Kit realizes he has lost the opportunity to make it back by ley travel and becomes a part of the primitive community. Kit masters a small vocabulary of their language and can communicate in a crude way. Kit also discerns that the primitives are able to communicate in some manner of telepathy. Kit meets the cheiftain En-Ul and amazingly is able to telepathically communicate with him. He learns of the bone house, and accompanies En-Ul to participate in a ritual within the structure. While there, the ley lamp becomes active, Kit falls through the floor into a pit and ley travels to a luxuriant paradise. There he comes across a pool of light and witnesses The Man Who Is Map carrying his dead wife into the pool; when they come out, she is alive, and Kit realizes they are at ‘The Well of Souls.’

Lord Archelaeus Burleigh

Gemma Burley gave birth to Archibald Burley the illegitimate son of aristocratic Vernon Ashmole. Spurned by Ashmole, Gemma is forced to raise Archie on her own. Archie is noticed by Granville Gower who takes Burley in to mentor in the antiquities trade. Over time, Archie learns the trade, makes money and learns that a title of high standing will bring great reward. His mentor dies and Archie goes into the business in earnest. He changes his name to Lord Archeleaus Burleigh, Earl of Sutherland. Upon returning from one of his extended travels, he is found to have given himself totally to scholarly pursuits.

Lord Burleigh meets up with Sir Edward Fayth (Lord Henry Fayth's brother) and his daughter Lady Haven Fayth. Haven has no trust in Burleigh, but through a series of unusual events comes to accompany Lord Burleigh on many of his ley travels, in particular to Prague and the royal court of Rudolph II.

Lord Burleigh is behind the development of the device for astral exploration, knowing that the court of Rudolph (who himself is eccentric or perhaps mad) provides the necessary expertise for its construction.

Douglas Flinders-Petrie

Douglas is the great, great grandson of The Man Who Is Map and has plans of his own. With the assistance of a dimwitted assistant named Snipe, Douglas steals a book written in ciphers from the London Museum.

Douglas takes great pains to learn to speak midieval Latin and acquire costumes that would disguise him as a friar of that era. He and Snipe ley jump and meet Roger Bacon who believes he is a visiting monk from another locale. Douglas reveals the stolen book to the Doctor who examines it to announce that the glyphs are of his own making. The book is the Book of Forbidden Secrets. Over three days he translates the work and makes copies of the most important parts. This he keeps safe in his austere dwelling.

Douglas also shows the Doctor the skin map (which he had stolen from Henry Fayth). The Doctor reveals that the symbols are coordinates and provides a sample of the key needed to interpret the symbols. This he does by jotting down several symbols with their coordinate. Douglas acquires this and bids farewell. Meeting Snipe afterwards, he instructs his aid to steal the translation work in the Doctor’s quarters.

Arthur Flinders-Petrie

Arthur Flinders-Petrie (aka The Man Who Is Map and great, great grandfather of Douglas) arrives in ancient Egypt with his Chinese wife who is pregnant. Arthur finds Turms, an Egyptian prophet, priest, and king, who through ritual assures them that the baby is healthy and will be born alive. At a naming ceremony, Arthur inadvertently gives his son the name, Benedict, instead of the intended name of Benjamin. Benedict sticks.

Arthur and his wife return to England. After time, Arthur returns to ancient Egypt with Benedict who is to begin an apprenticeship that is not identified.

Stephen R. Lawhead's Web Page
List of CSFF Blog Tour Participants
The Bone House on Amazon

Thanks to Thomas Nelson for kindly providing a copy of The Bone House for review on the October, 2011 Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

CSFF Blog Tour - September 2011, Day Three

2011-09-21T05:20:00.000-07:00

Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour (September 2011) - Day Three.

The Monster in the Hollows, by Andrew Peterson.

In my first post I mentioned that because The Monster in the Hollows was well-written for the middle schooler, it would also be enjoyed by those beyond middle school age, i.e., by young adults and adults. Of course, I’m talking about stories written for children roughly between 8 and 12 years of age, and which are quality children’s stories like The Wind in the Willows, The Wizard of Oz, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Wouldbegoods, and The Monster in the Hollows. There were comments to the post that agreed with my observation. But is it a valid point? Is it credible to say that a level of writing that appeals to children would, by virtue of that intrinsic appeal, also be favored by older youth and adults? Because the adult is more mature both intellectually and psychologically, would it ordinarily be an embarrassment for the adult to be caught delighting in a children’s story?

I can only answer that in terms of my own response to such literature. My makeup – mental and psychological – is unique to me, but I don’t think absolutely so. In other words, the reasons for which good children’s literature appeals to me as an adult are the same reasons that other adults enjoy such literature. To be sure, the character of my response has subtle and not-so-subtle differences when compared to the response of others. But I think that when a literary work for children is enjoyed by older youth and adults, it is fundamentally for the same reasons.

C. S. Lewis would agree. In his essay, On Three Ways of Writing for Children, he states:

Where the children’s story is simply the right form for what the author has to say, then of course readers who want to hear that will read the story or re-read it, at any age. I never met The Wind in the Willows or the Bastable books till I was in my late twenties, and I do not think I have enjoyed them any the less on that account. I am almost inclined to set it up as a canon that a children’s story which is enjoyed only by children is a bad children’s story. The good one’s last.

Lewis implies that the form of the children’s story and the message of the author have a lot to do whether or not the children’s story itself is the appropriate vehicle to send the message. It does not really matter what the nature of the message is. It may be a serious one such as we are hopeless, helpless sinners under God’s wrath, and only through God’s mercy and grace in Christ may we find hope and help. The message could be historically educational such as what it would have been like as a youngster during the American Revolution (Johnny Tremain, by Esther Forbes). Related to history is biography, and the one that jumps to mind is Carry on Mr. Bowditch, by Jean Lee Latham. My son, now 21 and hard at work in theological studies, thinks it is one of the best novel’s he’s ever read. The message may be about a child’s love for a dog and the emotional drive of revenge as in Big Red by Jim Kjelgaard. Probably my own over-all favorite is the Great Brain series by John D. Fitzgerald.

When I was stationed at Fort Bragg in the mid 1980’s, I was at one of my favorite places of the mall - Golden Bookstore. That is where I first came across The Great Brain. This is significant. I was looking in the children’s section not because I was looking for a children’s book for a child. I was just looking because there was the attraction, a penchant for a good juvenile book that came very early in my life as a result of the consumption of at least half a dozen novels based on the characters of Oz created by Lyman Frank Baum. I bought the book, read it, and sent it to my then seven-year-old daughter (who read The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe when she was four). She loved it, of course.

Why does the children’s story appeal to me and other adults as well. I guess the pat answer is the one that says there is a child in all of us. I think, if properly understood, that is true. It means that certain things you delighted in as a child are still a delight today. For me it means the youthful experiences of playing in the woods, eating apple dumplings, leaping two feet into the air in joy over a World Series winning home run (a la Bill Mazeroski in the 1960 series against the New York Yankees), and sleeping in a snug, warm bed are experiences I still enjoy. To be sure, I merely walk in the woods these days, and though I still get excited about sports, I doubt I could defy gravity by more than two inches any more. And I don’t fall asleep as sweetly as I used to - too many things on my mind and too many aches in my body. Nothing has changed about the apple dumplings.

Now to get to my point in all of this. I ran across a review by a twelve-year-old on Kjelgaard’s Big Red. There is something he said that is pertinent.

I liked this book because it was real descriptive and I could picture what was happening. It just has a great plot overall but the illustrations were not as good as the words.

To this twelve-year-old, the craft of the writing made the book come alive. It painted a picture better than what literal pictures could do. Granted, the illustrations may have been poor drawings but that is unlikely. In some sense, I find most illustrations to be poor, not because the quality of the drawing is poor, but because they don’t comport with what has been conjured up by my own imagination based on the words of the author.

The Monster in the Hollows is a fabulous example of the children’s story whose quality is certain to please not only the child in the child, but also the child in the adult. And it’s because of the words. The writing is high standard. It is simple yet powerful. Description, dialogue, and action are related to us through uncomplicated language that is crafted so well it takes us into an imaginatively visible world.

Here’s an example that I came to after randomly flipping through a few pages.

“Hello? Biggin?” Groundwich knocked on the door as she opened it. “Biggin O’Sally?”
“Biggin’s gone. Just us.” A boy swaggered into the doorway and leaned against it as if he didn’t have a care in the world. He wore a white shirt without sleeves, and his pants were held up with suspenders. He tilted his head a little so the lock of his long black hair that wasn’t slicked back didn’t cover his eyes. A strip of dried meat hung out of his mouth, and he chewed it as he observed the visitors without even a nod of greeting.
“Who is it?” came another boy’s voice.
“Head Guildmadam Groundwich and some others. One’s a funny kid.”
The way he said it didn’t bother Janner for some reason. The boy was stating a fact, not hurling an insult. Kalmar didn’t seem to be bothered by it either.
“I wanna see.” Another boy, a little taller but dressed the same, with the same slick hair and unimpressed expression, appeared at the door and looked Kalmar over. “Oy, he’s furry,” he said, then he went back to whatever he had been doing.
“These are the O’Sally boys,” said Olumphia. “There are two others. Where are they?” She craned her neck to look inside.
“With Pa. Training. Out back.” The first boy sniffed and swallowed a chunk of meat.
“You can tell him, then,” said the guildmadam. “He has a new student. I won’t hear any complaint about it. Her name is Leeli Wingfeather, and I wager she’ll know dogspeak better than either of you by the end of the week.”
“No she won’t,” said the boy with a hint of a shrug. “Nobody can train better than me and my brothers. Not even Pa, though he won’t admit it. Don’t mean any disrespect, ma’am.”
“I took none, Thorn. But you’re wrong.”
“That’s possible, ma’am.” Thorn took another bite of meat and looked past them at Leeli for the first time. She sat on a bale of hay, scratching a gray horse of a dog behind the ears and singing to it. Behind the gray dog, a dozen more stood patiently in line, as though waiting their turn. “Very possible,” said Thorn with nod of surprise.

For me, the musty smell of straw and animal come without the mention of any kind of smell. It comes with the picture in my mind. Another thing is what this scene does for the story itself. Against the opposition of just about everyone else in Ban Rona, and especially against the cruel tauntings of Grigory Bunge and other classmates that will come, there is no animosity from the O’Sally boys; just curiosity. This benign attitude stands out again and again and in fact plays a small but critical part in the climax of the story.

I spoke just this last Sunday with an elderly woman in our church. She loves to read because most of the time it’s better than a movie. That is what is so good about The Monster in the Hollows. The excellent writing is a form through which the story plays out before our mind’s eye. What is better is that we see it not as watching a play from a seat in the theater, but as a ghost figure on the stage itself. It strikes all the chords of our own childhood experiences, and an essay could be written on that alone.

Participant Links

Get The Monster in the Hollows on amazon.
Rabbit Room Book Link
Series Web Site

Thanks to Rabbit Room Press who kindly provided a copy of the book for review on the CSFF blog tour. The Monster in the Hollows, by Andrew Peterson, is book three of the Wingfeather Saga.

CSFF Blog Tour - September 2011, Day Two

2011-09-19T20:59:00.000-07:00

Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour (September 2011) - Day Two.

The Monster in the Hollows, by Andrew Peterson.

Most of us have had at least one school teacher whom we could not possibly forget. Their image is ever before us because of something about them that made an impression as indelible as a tatoo on a frog’s rump and just as rare. I had several.

One was a seventh grade reading teacher that I would have sworn had played the Wicked Witch of the West (Margaret Hamilton) in the 1939 movie, the Wizard of Oz.

Her looks and personality would have made her a natch for the part. I had never seen the movie in color so I had no idea the witch was green. Had I known, it would have been a surefire clue that the witch and my teacher were not the same since she was no greener than I. This woman was absolutely fastidious about everything. I was taking a test once which required me to select items from a list of answers to associate with items in a second list. I struck through the number of an answer as I used it to ensure I didn’t use it twice.

The WWW was floating up and down the aisles between the desks, stopping here and there as she checked for who knows what. As an experiment to see what response I would get from her, I crossed out some of the numbers with a slash, others with a backslash, and not in any particular sequence. Sure enough, she came to my desk, and with those perpetually turned-down corners of her mouth, she looked upon my paper and scowled fiercely. She stooped, and with a long bony finger pointed to my deviant markings and demanded I use the same stroke.

In sixth grade I had a teacher whose tantrums became legendary among us diminutive scholars, though somehow their notoriety never passed beyond the classroom walls. It was grade school, and we had the same teacher for all our classes, so we were in danger of her wrath from 8:00 AM to 3:30 PM five days a week, excluding the holidays for Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year.

The most dreaded hour was the one right after lunch…history class. There were daily reading assignments which were to be completed the evening before. To see if we did our work, the teacher asked a question that was generally so simple that if one had merely slept with the text book under his pillow, he would have known the answer. The trouble, in spite of knowing her wrath would be swift and sure, almost to the man (generic masculine which still works for me) the assignment was ignored. She slammed books on her desk, shouted out what must have been fashionable oaths, and once, from the back of the room, threw a piece of chalk which shattered to pieces on the blackboard at the front.

I could go on and talk about Miss Dickey, my seventh grade math teacher, or Miss Jameison, my eleventh grade English teacher, both who had also been my father’s teachers. The math teacher was a snarly, caustic critic of that sub-human species called children, while the English teacher spoke incoherently with her eyes closed and a silly smile of rubied lips.

Andrew Peterson must have had similar experiences because they come to us crisp and clear through the pages of his book. The most memorable for me is found in the chapter titled, The Ten Whiskers of Olumphia Groundwich. Allow me to quote at length and see for yourself if my point is not well-taken. The scene is the first day of school, and Nia with her children have just arrived in a carriage at The Guilding Hall and Institute for Hollish Learning. They’ve come to a stop before the stone buildings of the school.

“Where is everybody?” Leeli asked.
“In class. Down you go,” Nia said. “We need to speak to the head guildmaster.”
Janner wanted to ask what a head guildmaster was, but he figured he would know soon enough.
The three children were as skittish as thwaps in Podo’s garden as Nia marched up the steps and knocked three times on the main door. It swung open immediately, and before them stood a tall, hideous woman in boots and a blue dress. The sleeves were too short, so her knobby wrists and half her forearms stuck out past the frills. Her hair was pulled back in a bun, which made her heavy brow and jaw seem even bigger. She frowned at them with a face that boasted exactly ten curly whiskers: two sprouting from her chin, six on her upper lip, one jutting out from the center of her nose, and one on her left cheek. Janner felt bad for counting them.
“Oy! Nia Igiby Wingfeather!” the woman barked. Her voice was somehow shrill and husky at the same time. “I was expecting you. Follow.” She spun around and clomped away.
Nia gave the children a surprised look and led them into the school….
The ten-whiskered woman stopped and held open a door labeled “Head Guildmadam.” Nia thanked her with a nod and herded the children through. The room was furnished with a small desk and several chairs. A big brown dog snored on a blanket in the corner. Nia gestured for the children to sit and waited until the whiskery dame closed the door and sat at the desk.
“I figure you don’t remember me,” the woman said with a scowl. “I figure you’re Nia Igiby who up and married a king and left the Hollows. I figure you’re bringing your three pups here for a proper Hollish education. I figure you think you’re somebody now, don’t you?”
“I do, as a matter of fact,” said Nia. “And I think you’re somebody too.”
“Oy? Then who, Your Highness? Who is the woman who sits before you?” The woman leaned back in her chair and folded her arms. She stared at Nia and frowned with great effort, which caused the six whiskers on her upper lip and the two on her chin to flick about like the antennae of a bug.
“Children,” Nia said, still looking the woman in the eye, “I’d like you to meet the guildmadam. Guildmadam Groundwich. I knew her many years ago as Olumphia Groundwich, the Terror of Swainsby Road.”
….
“Oy!” said Olumphia Groundwich, and she narrowed one eye. “Your mother knows me well. So well, in fact, that she had another name for me. Didn’t you, Nia Igiby? You called me something that no one else dared to call me.”
“I did,” Nia said after a pause.
“Tell them.” Mistress Groundwich scratched at a whisker and waved her hand. “Tell them now so we can be done with it.”
Janner prayed that whatever name Nia called her wouldn’t lead to a fight right there in the guildmadam’s office. He desperately wanted to be on this woman’s good side, though he doubted she had a good side.
“I called you friend,” Nia said with a smile. “My best friend.”
“Oy!” Mistress Groundwich said. She leapt to her feet and towered over them. “Oy!” she said again. It startled all three Wingfeather children, who nearly jumped out of their seats.
Nia embraced Olumphia, who lifted Nia off her feet and made a noise like a growl, at which point the big dog in the corner woke and thumped its tail. Nia looked like one of the children being swung around in one of Podo’s hugs.
“Nia, my heart is full of joy at seeing you again. I just knew you’d been killed or imprisoned—or—Fanged.” She shot a glance at Kalmar and continued. “But you didn’t! You came back! And with children!”
“It’s good to see you Olumphia,” Nia laughed. “And head guildmadam! By the hills and the hollows, I’m impressed! You hated school.”
“I’m as surprised as you are. Never thought anyone would call me Guildmadam. I’m even more surprised that I love it. I always wondered why the Maker made me so tall and lanky, and why he gave me these rogue whiskers. Used to pluck them out every other day, but I found the students more terrified of me with them than without. I don’t have a husband—yet—so what do I care?”
“Finding a man might be trickier with whiskers,” Nia said.
“Oy! Hadn’t thought of that.” Olumphia plucked out one of the whiskers. Janner cringed. Olumphia blinked away the water that sprang to her eyes and chuckled. “There! I’ll find me a Hollish prince in no time. The blasted thing will be back by tomorrow evening, though.” Olumphia held up the whisker and inspected it with a frown.

Now, if that doesn’t make you want to get a book from the Wingfeather Saga, in the words of Sapphire Surefoot, “You ain’t in your right mind!”

Participant Links

Get The Monster in the Hollows on amazon.

Rabbit Room Book Link

Series Web Site

Thanks to Rabbit Room Press who kindly provided a copy of the book for review on the CSFF blog tour. The Monster in the Hollows is book three of the Wingfeather Saga.

CSFF Blog Tour - September, 2011, Day One

2011-09-18T20:52:00.000-07:00

Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour (September 2011) - Day One.

The Monster in the Hollows, by Andrew Peterson.

After a long trip across the Dark Sea of Darkness, and the harrowing experiences with the Fangs of Dang, forest-roaming toothy cows, a sea serpent, child slavery in the Fork Factory, and the battle of Kimera, the Igiby family arrives off the shores of Anneira, Nia Igiby’s homeland and its queen. Janner and Kalmer (her sons), Leeli (her daughter), and Podo Helmer (her father and former pirate) arrive with her. Janner had dreamed of living again in Castle Rysen where he was born. But his dreams turn to foolishness. Gnag the Nameless set it afire nine years prior, and it is still burning.

Janner was tired of running. He wanted a place to call his own, a place where Fangs didn’t roam, where Stranders didn’t want to cut his throat, and where he and his family could finally be at peace. (p. 9)

The children ask how it is possible that the land was still burning. Nia's answer somberly reveals the gravity of the threat that is pursuing them.

     Nia wiped her eyes. When she spoke, Janner heard the tremble of anger in her voice. “Gnag has hate enough in his heart to melt the very foundations of the castle, down to the bones of the isles itself. He won’t rest until Anniera sinks into the sea.”
    “But why?” Janner asked. “Why does he hate it so much? Who is he, even?”
    “Who knows? When it rages long enough, hate doesn’t need a reason. It burns for the sake of its own heat and devours whatever, or whomever, is set before it. Before the war, rumor came to us about an evil in the mountains—but Throg is a long way from Anniera. We never imagined it would come to us.” Nia closed her eyes. “By the time we realized the Fangs were after Anniera, it was too late. Your father believed the Symian Strait would protect us—or at least give us time to mount a defense.” She shook her head and looked at the children. “The point is, Gnag seemed to come from nowhere, like a crash of lightning. He wanted Anniera. He wanted us dead.” (p. 9,10)

And so, the book begins against the backdrop of an evil entity seeking out their destruction from whom they hope to find haven soon in the Green Hollows, just beyond the burning Anniera. Gnag dwells to the south of the Hollows in the Castle Throg where he “broods on the world’s destruction.” But the Hollows are presumably a sanctuary for several reasons. The folk there are a strong, determined people who have never liked outsiders and have been diligent to keep the Hollows isolated. The land is also protected by a massive, treacherous mountain range that separates it from Gnog's dwelling place; and the deep, twisted forest of Blackwood (whom no one has ever survived) surrounds the Hollows on the east and north. The west is open to the sea. Beside all that, Gnag would not expect to find them in his own back yard—who would be foolish enough to seek refuge there?

Nia is not absolutely certain, but she thinks Gnag made his army of fangs from people. It is probably so. Somewhere in all of the dangers and battles they have been through, Kalmar has fallen victim to this. He was transformed into a Grey Fang, a wolf whose vicious animal appetites overwhelm him at times, though he has learned to control much of it. His eyes are blue, as they were before, but his whole appearance is brutish having a snout, wolfish teeth, and dog-like ears that lay back on his head when he’s sorrowful or embarrassed.

The Green Hollows promises peace and safety, but there is trouble. The Hollow folk hate fangs. Kalmar would have been lynched and murdered if not for Nia’s call for turalay, in which she vouches for Kalmar’s behavior upon pain of the same punishment Kalmar would suffer should he violate his probation.

The family settles in the home of their father’s friend (their father has been lost) and they begin life in the Hollows. It is hard as the children face the brutal tauntings and threats of their schoolmates day in and day out. This becomes quite intense during PT (pummelry training), a class in which Janner and Kalmar are up against those who are at least a year or two older.

There is a monster in the Hollows who is killing livestock, and the citizens are determined to hunt it down and kill it. Who is the monster? Where did he come from, and what is he doing there? What will become of him? The answers to these questions bring the story to an awesome conclusion and set the stage for the final book.

The story and the writing is not like the Chronicles of Narnia, so to compare it to Lewis's classic tales would be absurd. Yet I think it could stand side by side with it. That is, I think the book has the stuff which makes a classic, a classic. Its characters are wonderful and the intertwining of subplots within the main is delightful. The conflict between the Igiby’s and the citizens of the Hollows, especially for the children, brings tension and suspense that keep the story moving, compelling the reader to press on. Humor, villainy, treachery, loyalty, humility, sacrifice and more evoke a wide range of emotion.

I think it is mildly Christian, but I don't think that is a detriment. It does portray the evilness of evil and it reveals to some degree the inner conflicts of conscience that rise in the human heart. It is not a study of these, but it does bring them before the reader. That is all the more a wonder because the young reader's interest is most likely entertainment, and as the story fulfills that element, it does so with a seriousness that is befitting a quality children's story; the kind that a serious Christian writer will strive for.

God is known in the story by the name of Maker, and there is nothing unbiblical that I can detect about the Maker of this fantasy world. The tale does not present a clear message of the Gospel either through pointed declaration or fantastical imagery, so for Christian parents who are looking for such a fantasy, this is not the one. But it is quality literature: wholesome, imaginative, entertaining, and a fine example of the Christian writer who strives, as the image-bearer of God, to reflect the creative attributes of God through his story telling.

Though it is advertised as young adult fantasy (technically age 14 – 21), it is really for middle school readers, roughly age 9 – 12. It is superbly written for that group, and because of that, I think its appeal reaches beyond pre-teens to include young adult and adult.

The Wingfeather saga began in the first volume, On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness (March 18, 2008)

This was followed by North! Or Be Eaten (August 18, 2009)

The saga will conclude in the forthcoming novel, The Warden and the Wolf King.

For a drawing of a Grey Fang by Mr. Peterson’s twelve year old son, Aeden, visit his blog, The Crimson Phoenix. You can see another drawing by Justin Gerard at A Fang Of Dang.

Participant Links

Get The Monster in the Hollows on amazon.

Rabbit Room Book Link

Series Web Site

Thanks to Rabbit Room Press who kindly provided a copy of the book for review on the CSFF blog tour. The Monster in the Hollows, by Andrew Peterson, is book three of the Wingfeather Saga.

Day Three - June, 2011 CSFF Blog Tour, Darkness Follows

2011-06-22T05:28:00.000-07:00

Darkness Follows by Mike Dellosso
Published by Realms, Lake Mary, FL

In this final post, I would like to touch on two things, Dellosso’s writing and the question of what makes Christian fiction, Christian.

The writing is average. Character development is key for any novel to be good. For me, none of the characters drew much empathy. Evoking empathy always goes back to how life-like the characters become in the imagination of the reader. If the reader lives out the character in his mind, the author has done his job well. Certainly, the success of that has a lot to do with the reader, but I think it has more to do with the writer. Granted, creating good characters is not easy and most of us have to work hard at it. I don’t think the characters in Darkness Follows rise much above those that are commonly found in Christian fiction today. My favorite example of good characterization is George Polivka’s Blaggard’s Moon. His is a high standard, and we would all do well to try and meet it. That doesn’t mean we emulate Polivka. But we should study him (and others who equally qualify) to see what factors and techniques he uses that make his characters so good, and strive to use them within the complex of our own personality, vocabulary, temperament, and style.

Having said that the characters drew little empathy from me, I confess that I liked Dellosso’s characters of Symon and his victims, the latter of whom (excluding the state trooper, Ned Coleman) were cameo appearances. Short-lived (no pun intended) but memorable. The fact that they were murdered didn’t elicit empathy because they weren’t around long enough. Even so, they were vivid and interesting.

One of the things all writers commonly make use of is simile. I find simile to be a good litmus of an author’s writing ability. Good writers use simile that fits the situation or mood without excessive verbiage. Bad writers don’t. Using appropriate simile is difficult. When done well, it is like the brushstroke that finishes the masterpiece. When not done well, it is like spinach topping on your least favorite ice cream. Darkness Follows has too much of the latter.

...his words trailed off like a column of smoke into a starless sky. (p 37)
...tickling Molly’s skin like insect legs. (p 50)
Questions, like day-old bug bites, nagged him. (p 57)
Those words rushed back from the past like a winter wind... (p 130)
His hands quivered like the last leaves of autumn buffeted by a stiff November wind. (p 166)
The bullet pierced Symon’s palm like an awl through leather... (p 260)

It’s not that these don’t give us a vivid picture, I think they do. But they just don’t fit and some are overstated. Words trailing off like a column of smoke is good, but the starless sky adds nothing and hampers the effect. Insect legs on Molly’s skin probably wouldn’t tickle, but they sure would draw a reaction. Day-old bug bites presumably itch, but how does itching carry the imagery of nagging. What is the connection between the sudden recollection of a conversation (real or imagined) and a winter wind? Leaves buffeted by a stiff November wind don’t quiver; they thrash about. A speeding bullet through a palm is nothing like the slow-pressured force that pushes an awl through leather.

To be fair, there were some fine examples of simile; here are two:

The line began to move like a segmented worm... (p 83)
A memory, like a gunshot, exploded in Symon’s mind... (p 83)

The question, What makes ‘Christian fiction,’ Christian? is a crucial one. As writers of Christian fiction, we want to get this right. For me, Christian fiction is not truly Christian unless it pointedly and clearly brings in the salient truths of the gospel. One may argue that such a definition is too narrow. Some would say that it should include any fiction written by Christians, predominately for Christians, and does not require a heavy emphasis on the gospel itself. Wholesome themes - love, faithfulness, kindness, graciousness, humility, forgiveness - essentially the fruits of the Spirit delineated by Paul in Galatians 5:22 are sufficient to mark the literary work as Christian. These themes are good, and they are Christian, but they are genuinely so only when they are understood in the light of the Gospel. Christ came to save sinners, not from hell primarily, but from their sins, which has implications not only for one’s eternal destiny, but also for this life. Christ saves his people from their sins, transforming them into a people who grieve over their sin, repent continuously, recognize the deceitfulness of their own sinful hearts, and in an ongoing manner, humbly seek the mercy and grace of the One who saves them that they may overcome worldliness and carnality. As overcomers, they manifest the fruit of the Spirit. Bringing these truths out is what qualifies a novel to be worthy of Christian classification.

This does not mean a Christian can’t write purely for entertainment. Nor does it mean that all the elements of the Christian faith must be treated with equal emphasis. As an image-bearer of God, writing good fiction, creating a world of fiction (reflecting God’s creativeness), even if there is no effort to include Gospel truths, is a worthy vocation, and one that honors God. But if it does not pointedly bring out the truths of the Gospel, let’s not call it Christian.

Darkness Follows is anemically Christian. It mentions the love of Jesus, but doesn’t tell the reader what that means. It provides a contrast between good and evil, but the most pagan of literary works does that because it is impossible to avoid. The Christian novel should show why it is unavoidable through a strong Gospel oriented story.

Dellosso’s novel is dark, and alarmingly so in several places. That in itself doesn’t disqualify it as Christian. What severely damages its qualification as Christian is that the Gospel is absent. Merely including Eva’s need to tell her daddy that Jesus loves him fails to qualify the novel as Christian. Stephen King could write a novel like that, but no one would think of it as Christian.

Many in the world and the professing Church have been told that Jesus loves them yet have none of the grace of God that transforms them from sinner to saint because they misunderstand what that love is. These do not see God’s love side by side with God’s holy hatred of them as sinners (Psalm 5:5) who are under divine condemnation and are powerless to do anything about it because they are dead in their sins (Ephesians 2:1). They don’t understand that their hope is not in any inherent goodness they think they have, nor in any value they think God sees in them. They don’t see that their only hope is in the atonement of Christ through which they may be saved from their sin and sinfulness. Without the clear, pointed presence of the Gospel in a novel, the novel is not Christian.

Participant Links
Mike Dellosso Website
Darkness Follows on Amazon

Thanks to Realms Publishing for kindly providing a copy of Darkness Follows for review on the Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

Day Two - June, 2011 CSFF Blog Tour, Darkness Follows

2011-06-21T04:15:00.000-07:00

Darkness Follows by Mike Dellosso
Published by Realms, Lake Mary, FL

WARNING: THIS ARTICLE IS A SPOILER.

Some may regard the issues I bring out in this article to be much ado about nothing, but I think they are important and have a direct bearing on the quality of the story.

The psychopathic mystery character I mentioned in the Day One post is known as Symon (that was what the voice on the phone called him) but his real name comes to him in a rush after he has gone down from a rifle shot that ‘pierced his palm like an awl through leather.’ Curled in pain on the ground, Symon has another flashback, of having been shot once before, and of a woman kneeling over him mouthing his name, Albert.

His full name is Albert Drake, and the denouement chapter seventy-three contains a transcript of a talk show, Mitch Lewis Live, whose guest is Lucretia Billows, presumably the woman Symon recalls mouthing his name. Based on the transcript the two characters, Albert Drake and Sam Travis were both brainwashed by a Marxist group (the Marxist Brotherhood), and we are to infer from this, I believe, the brainwashing is responsible for the strange behavior of both.

This fits appropriately with Drake who can remember nothing earlier than two months prior although, over the brief time-span of the novel, recollections of his childhood, involvement with the Marxist group, and of his own daughter come back in bits and pieces. His instructions (to kidnap Sam Travis’s daughter, Eva, as a hostage to ensure Sam’s complicity with the assassination attempt) are from a voice over the phone most likely a member of the Marxist group. In the pursuit of the kidnapping, Drake, without feeling (which he finds troublesome), murders six people who live in the Gettysburg area.

Looking back over the book, Sam Travis’s brainwashing can be taken as a factor in his behavior and strange experiences, but some of those experiences have an other-worldly feel, and intentionally so, I think, by the author. They are meant to be taken at face value as truly other-worldly. As such, these particular experiences are not attributable to brainwashing. Rather than finding a lucid explanation for them, their presence is puzzling.

To see this, we have to step back a little and try to see the brainwashing of Sam Travis in the context of the big picture, beginning with the prologue.

Samuel Whiting, the inaugural figure of the prologue, is a historic personality, a Captain of the Union Army at Gettysburg. He is writing in his journal, and the content of his writing is given only in general terms. However, I believe we are to infer from the modern day entries Sam Travis makes in his daughter’s notebook (journal entries as though authored by Captain Whiting, but actually written in Sam Travis’s hand) that the Captain wrote of his despair over the needless death and suffering of the battle for which he blames President Lincoln. While writing, a mysterious darkness engulfs the Captain. The reader has the sense that that darkness plays a significant role in his decision to assassinate President Lincoln, an intuition that is more and more confirmed as the novel unfolds. The point here - there is an other-worldly presence at the outset, the darkness, that enshrouds the Union Captain.

In the present day, Sam Travis, as noted, composes journal entries as if written by Captain Whiting, but does so unconsciously. I wonder, is this meant to be the result of his brainwashing, or something else? That explanation might be discounted if we consider the final chapters where it becomes known that the real Captain Whiting is a relative of Sam’s (a great, great, great uncle) and that he is not the only one in the family to have been insane (‘gone off the deep end’, p 274) There is a darkness that has been in the family which affected not only Whiting, but also Sam’s brother, Tommy (a chilling psycho), and Sam himself. If the darkness that followed his family into the present day is the cause of Sam’s ‘trance writing’ in his daughter’s notebook, then Sam is a golden find for the Marxists, and their brainwashing techniques would have had to be, I think, quite sophisticated to make use of it.

But the reason given for Sam’s enlistment as related by Lucretia Billows is that Albert (Symon, the psycho murderer) didn’t have the skills the Marxists needed, and Sam Travis did. Those skills presumably are his expertise with the rifle. Lucretia also notes that the Marxists became involved with the occult and that it was at their deepest involvement when they began to work on Sam. Was it through the occult they were able to discern Sam’s dark side and manipulate it? If so, that would that have been a useful point, which could have been more obviously developed in the story. But we don’t know for sure and are left guessing, which for some may be acceptable, but it leaves me unsatisfied.

It may be that the author deliberately, without spelling it out, intends for the trance writing to be an aspect of the insanity complex that follows Sam’s family, because the symptoms of it appear back in the original scene with Captain Whiting:

After dipping the tip of his quill into an inkwell, he put the tip to the paper and began to write. The words flowed from his hand, though they were not born of him... His quill moved across the paper more rapidly now, the point carving words--vitriol--at an alarming pace. p. 1, 2

If Dellosso intentionally depicts Captain Whiting to be induced with trance writing and purposely meant it to be one of the insanity elements that are passed down through the family and to have it reappear in Sam Travis’s case, I must say that is ingenious.

But here’s what I find confusing. The Marxist group presumably brainwashed Sam Travis, just as they did Albert Drake. When, where, and how is absent and unexplained and would not only have made the story cohere better, but also provided ample opportunity to develop Sam Travis’s character and psyche more thoroughly, a problem I find with most of the characters in the book (Symon excepted to some degree).

If perchance we are reading too much into Lucretia Billows talk show account, and Sam Travis was not brainwashed, it is not clear at all what the Marxists did do in an effort to use his expertise as a shooter in their plan to assassinate the presidential hopeful, Stephen Lincoln. So I wonder how Sam came to the decision to assassinate the target. Was it because of brainwashing or because of the darkness (expressed through the trance writing and, near the end, through a psychological manifestation of his dead brother, Tommy)? Or was it both? Did the Marxist group become aware of Sam’s bent toward a dark side, connect it to Samuel Whiting and the inherent proclivity to trance writing, and so brainwash him in such a way as to use that? It was essentially Sam Travis’s unconscious journal entries that brought him to the conclusion that he should assassinate Senator Lincoln. Was that a result of brainwashing with the unintentional but fortunate (for the Marxist group) side effect of the trance writing, or was the Marxist group aware of the trance writing trait and intended all along to use the brainwashing toward that end. Who knows, it’s not unequivocally connected if that is so. And again, if it were intentional, it would have been a fantastic opportunity to bring the story to a deeper and more mature development.

Here is another matter which is a loose end that I think should have been resolved. In the first chapter, Sam hallucinates (maybe) and hears the Gettysburg battle going on around his home. This might be the result of brainwashing, but the surreal bullet that shattered the window loudly enough to awaken his daughter and wife who are sound asleep upstairs is never found by Sam’s wife or the state trooper, Ned Coleman. What actually shattered the window is never explained (as far as I remember) and though at first it seemed to be significant, it never comes to mean anything. It also lends support to the possibility that the sounds of the Gettysburg battle were not purely mental but also involved external, other-worldly forces as well, which if so, was likewise ignored in the rest of the book.

The appearances of Tommy, Sam Travis’s dead brother, might be attributable to brainwashing, especially given the traumatic experience of having to kill his own brother to save his mother and father from a grisly murder at Tommy’s hands. So Sam’s hallucinatory experiences of Tommy’s manifestations are understandable from that point. But Sam also sees Jacob, albeit not until the climax is about to unfold. Jacob is not a by-product of the brainwashing and not intended to be a hallucinatory figment. Jacob is truly other-worldly, though a benign figure.

Jacob, until the final chapters, is an invisible friend of Eva, taken to be a make-believe playmate by her parents, but the reader is left with the strong impression that he is real. Jacob continually encourages Eva to tell her daddy that she loves him. He even reveals that her dad is going to do something very bad, and that she needs to pray for him.

The reality of Jacob is confirmed when he appears to Sam and assists him in finding his way to his daughter and her abductor, Symon. The confusion for me is that if Jacob, in the end, is not restricted to intervene through Eva only, why did he not do so directly with Sam from the start?

All of these may be making a mountain out of a molehill but the author who thinks through his story thoroughly, works such issues out. Granted, one can probably find inconsistencies and dangling themes in the best works, but I think these in Darkness Follows could have been handled better.

Participant Links
Mike Dellosso Website
Darkness Follows on Amazon

Thanks to Realms Publishing for kindly providing a copy of Darkness Follows for review on the Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

Darkness Follows by Mike Dellosso, Day One - June, 2011 CSFF Blog Tour

2011-06-19T21:32:00.000-07:00

Darkness Follows by Mike Dellosso
Published by Realms, Lake Mary, FL

Darkness Follows by Mike Dellosso is a novel that incorporates elements amenable to suspense: mystery, intrigue, and dark psychological intensity.

The setting is Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the battle site of the bloodiest conflict of the American Civil War and the greatest artillery barrage on the North American continent. The prologue introduces Samuel Whiting, a captain of the Union Army in his tent at the end of a bloody day of fighting. He is disillusioned about the cause of the war and the way in which it is being fought. He takes up his pen and writes in his journal. As he writes, the words come quickly and with ease though they are not ‘born of him, but of something else, something dark and sinister, something to which he had finally given himself.” (p 2) Captain Whiting detects a dark, shadowy presence in the tent with him, accompanied by a low moaning wind that snuffs out the light of his writing candle and leaves him in darkness. This establishes intrigue at the outset and contains the kernel that ultimately binds various threads together, although there are some threads left dangling.

In the first chapter, the scene shifts to modern day Gettysburg, and the night scene of Sam Travis who awakens from a bad dream that has terrified him. The only hint of what the dream was about is the mention of his brother and a shot, and Sam Travis’s post-dream recollection of a voice in the past, ‘You did what you had to do, son.’

Sam rises for a drink of water assuring his wife Molly that he’s all right. He checks on their seven-year-old daughter Eva, who is soundly sleeping in her room. Sam moves on to the bathroom were he splashes down his face with water and studies the scar on his face in the mirror. The scar signifies something happened, which has made the last six months very trying for the Travis family.

Then Sam Travis hears a voice from downstairs calling his name. He recognizes it as the voice of his dead brother, Tommy. Sam has been hearing Tommy’s voice quite a bit lately, “a hundred ghostly times since the accident that had turned his own brain to mush. The doctor called them auditory hallucinations.”

Later, a mystery figure comes into the book, who doesn’t know who he is and is a psychopath who finds it troubling that he feels no remorse or guilt for the murders he commits. He asks all his victims if they have ever seen him, or know who he is - there is none who does. He recollects on a variety of occasions a voice on the telephone giving him instructions as to what he is to do, but he doesn’t know whose voice it is though he is compelled to follow it. These instructions include something he is to do to Sam and Molly’s daughter, Eva.

There is a Senator who recently has had a conversion from the liberal principles of the Democratic Party and become a Republican making him the leading Republican presidential hopeful.

The Senator (whose name I withhold lest it catalytically gives away too much), Sam Travis, the mystery psycho, and Eva all come together in a climactic ending that leaves one scratching his head, until he continues on and reads the post-climactic chapters, which, for the most part brings satisfying resolution to the puzzlements.

One more figure, a character that Eva sees, but no one else, whose name is Jacob and informs Eva that her Dad is afraid and needs her prayers. After a time, Sam and Molly become more and more concerned about Eva’s conversations with Jacob (Molly overhears one) and Eva’s insistence that Jacob, who is ‘all shiny like someone dipped him in glue and rolled him in sparkles,’ (p 50) is real.

The intrigue builds on a variety of fronts, and centers around the dark and morose.

Molly’s childhood was marred by a verbally abusive father.

The mystery figure, stymied about who he is, dredges up images and conversations that help bring his past back, though it is all quite disconnected. His father beat his mother and raped his sister. A woman laughs at him, another shoots him. Eventually he realizes he was married and has a daughter. The knowledge of a daughter has the tendency to bring mild restraint to his otherwise unbridled, murderous rage.

Sam Travis recalls his childhood in bits and pieces throughout the story, revealing his horribly disturbed brother, Tommy, and a frightening secret. He finds mysterious entries in his own hand in his daughter’s composition book which appear to be the entries of Samuel Whiting, dated during the Battle of Gettysburg, expressing a continuing mental descent into a despondent and darkened abyss, and eventually, to a resolution to kill the President.

The story qualifies as suspense, but it has the feel of being rushed. There are many places where a slower development of a situation or character would have been an enhancement. As an example, much of what takes place in the first chapter comes too fast. A case in point is what comes on the second page of the first chapter where already, without preparation for the reader or transition, Sam hears the voice of his dead brother, Tommy. To me, it feels out of joint and awkward.

In only a few places did I like the writing. On the whole, I found it average. If I can follow through and post each day of the Tour, my aim on the second day is to discuss Dellosso’s writing in a little more detail, both the good and the bad, and identify things that I think were puzzling. On the third, I want to say something briefly about the ‘Christian’ nature of the book.

Participant Links
Mike Dellosso Website
Darkness Follows on Amazon

Thanks to Realms Publishing for kindly providing a copy of Darkness Follows for review on the Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

Love Wins: A Critical Review – Part 1

2011-04-10T05:36:00.000-07:00

God’s Love and The Cross

Given the title, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, and the content of the book, I am confident that Rob Bell’s foundational thesis is buried in a statement he makes regarding hell:

We do ourselves great harm when we confuse the very essence of God, which is love, with the very real consequences of rejecting and resisting that love, which creates what we call hell. (p 177)

Rob Bell’s thesis is that the very essence of God is love. The word 'very' has several meanings, but the way in which he uses it here is a common use, and it means ‘complete and absolute.’ He is using this to describe the essence of God, that is, what God is in his being. To say that the very essence of God is love is to say everything that God is in and of himself is nothing else than love. Love controls God; nothing He does, thinks, says is contrary to love because it is impossible to be otherwise without contradicting Himself.

This verges on saying that Love is God, but I doubt that Bell would go that far. God is a Trinitarian being, one essence that exists in three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. I can agree from a Trinitarian perspective that the very essence of God is love because each person of that one essence loves the other supremely. But that is not what Bell is talking about. He is talking about God’s love toward objects outside the inter-Trinitarian fellowship. He is talking about God’s love for his creation and in particular for that creature made in his image, man and woman.

To say simply that very essence of God is love is to make a statement that is not very clear and raises a serious question, If God is completely and absolutely love, does that mean He has no other attributes?

I readily admit that is an absurd question, but the asking of it points to the absurdity of the idea that God in his essence is completely and absolutely love in relation to his creation. The very fact that by divine fiat (God said, ‘Let there be light.’) God brought the creation into being out of nothing clearly reveals his omnipotence and omniscience not to mention his sovereignty (Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1-4a).

I think Bell would affirm these attributes to one degree or another. But in doing so, he faces some serious challenges, which he either glosses over or ignores outright.

If God does have these other attributes then how can Bell be so dogmatic that love is the essential attribute of God? If the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience are granted, then we must also consider other attributes such as God’s holiness and justice (seeing that the Bible does so, Psalm 99:3, 5, 9; Isaiah 6:3; Habakkuk 1:13; 2 Timothy 4:8; Revelation 4:8; 6:10; 16:7; 19:2).

I mention holiness and justice in particular because I think Bell does not understand them aright and therefore does not appreciate their impact on the very things he talks about in his book: heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived. Bell’s flawed conception of these unfavorably affects his view on the love of God and divine punishment.

Bell’s position is one-sided. It is not the love of God alone that has direct implications for punishment, but the holiness and justice of God do as well. If God is utterly holy and absolutely just how can He not hold men accountable for their sins and inflict everlasting pain and suffering for their heinous offenses against Himself?

Bell’s answer on the one hand is that God simply cannot do that, for that kind of God, who would consign a man to unending torment for sins committed during a mere life-time, is unloving and cruel.

Of all the billions of people who have ever lived, will only a select number “make it to a better place” and every single other person suffer in torment and punishment forever? Is this acceptable to God? Has God created millions of people over tens of thousands of years who are going to spend eternity in anguish? Can God do this or even allow this, and still claim to be a loving God? (p 2)

The biblical answer to each of these questions is a resounding Yes! and I plan to show how so in a later article.

On the other hand, Bell’s answer that prohibits everlasting punishment is the cross of Christ, but his assessment of the cross is superficial. He spends no time exegeting the passages that he cites, he simply states the text without any explanation of its meaning in terms of its context or corpus of belief held by the writer. Regarding the cross he tallies so-called metaphors that the New Testament writers use to explain the cross. It is a sacrifice that does away with all other sacrifices (pp 123-126), reconciles all things to God (p 125), pays the price to free guilty sinners (p 126), destroys death and overcomes the world, (p 126), and buys back (redeems) something that was lost (p 127). Bell is very earnest to convey the idea that these metaphors were adequate for their time and place in history and culture, but we should not be limited to them:

The point, then, isn’t to narrow it [the meaning of the cross] to one particular metaphor, image, explanation, or mechanism. To elevate one over the others, to insist that there’s a “correct” or “right” one, is to miss the brilliant, creative work these first Christians were doing when they used these images and metaphors. They were reading their world, looking for ways to communicate this epic event in ways their listeners could grasp.

The point then, as it is now, is Jesus. The divine in flesh and blood. He’s where the life is. (p 129)

If I understand Bell’s message here, the so-called use of metaphor makes all the New Testament renderings of the meaning of the cross dated. Important as they were in their time, they are not so useful for us now. Their real usefulness in the New Testament world, as it should be now, is to make a point about something deeper, and that point is “...Jesus...where the life is.” An arcane pronouncement, which Bell makes no diligent effort to elucidate.

To place the various perspectives of the New Testament writers of the cross on the ash heap of outworn metaphors and images is telling of Bell’s superficiality when it comes to hermeneutics (the interpretation of scripture). It is particularly exposed with the metaphor of sacrifice. Bell cites Hebrews 9:26 as an example:

We read in Hebrews 9 that Jesus “has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (p 123)

Bell explains this as a metaphor to counter the centuries old practice of pagan ritual sacrifice whereby a peaceful relationship between us and the gods was hopefully attained:

That’s how it worked. Offer something, show that you’re serious, make amends, find favor, and then hope that was enough to get what you needed.

So when the writer of Hebrews insisted that Jesus was the last sacrifice ever needed, that was a revolutionary idea. To make that claim in those days? Stunning. Unprecedented.

Whole cultures centered around keeping the gods pleased. This was obviously a very costly, time-consuming ordeal, not to mention an anxiety-producing one. You never knew if you’d fully pleased the gods and paid the debt properly. And now the writer is announcing that those days are over because of Jesus dying on the cross. Done away with. Gone. Irrelevant.

The psychological impact alone would have been extraordinary - no more anxiety, no more worry, no more stress, no more wondering if the gods were pleased with you or ready to strike you down. There was no more need for any of that sacrifice, because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice that thoroughly pleased the only God who ever mattered. (pp 124, 125)

For the New Testament writers, sacrifice was not a figure of speech by which the pagan might come to understand the folly of his ritual and abate his fear of never appeasing the gods. Nor was the imagery of sacrifice a random notion that seemed a likely choice to make Jesus intellectually or culturally palatable to his hearers.

Sacrifice was not a metaphor. Sacrifice rose out of the history of redemption, namely, the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. For the writer to the Hebrews, the cross is without meaning if it is not understood in the light of Old Testament sacrifice, and if Bell had been honest to include the context of the verse he cites, he would have had to bring the meaning of Old Testament sacrifice into the sacrifice of Christ:

Of this, John Murray writes:

It lies on the face of the New Testament that Christ’s work is construed as sacrifice. And the only question is: what notion of sacrifice governs the pervasive use of the term sacrifice as it is applied to the work of Christ? This question can be answered only by determining what was the notion of sacrifice entertained by the New Testament speakers and writers. Steeped as these were in the language and ideas of the Old Testament, there is but one direction in which to seek their interpretation of the meaning and effect of sacrifice. (Redemption Accomplished And Applied, p 24).

Murray then expounds the meaning of sacrifice on the basis of the Old Testament ritual, in particular, the Day of Atonement.

I am making a special point regarding Bell’s hermeneutic because it should throw up a red flag. If he so blithely misconstrues the purpose of New Testament writers in the explanation of the cross in this one aspect - sacrifice - can he be trusted with his assessment on other aspects. Does he have any real understanding of the nature and scope of Christ’s death as the once-for-all satisfaction for the just punishment of God for the sins of his people? Does he truly understand the meaning of 1 Peter 2:24:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour (February 2011) - Day Three

2011-02-22T23:18:00.000-08:00

The God Hater, by Bill Myers.

Thanks to Simon and Schuster who kindly provided a copy of the book for review on the CSFF blog tour.

The success of the ‘project’ that Travis, Rebecca, and Hugh are involved in stands or falls on the preservation of free will. Whatever goes into the making of that world, or into a solution that addresses a problem, it must not influence the choice that a cyber-human may personally make and, by extension, what the collective community may agree to do.

It is curious that no one ever deduced that, given such a definition of free will, the programmer violated it with the first If..Then statement. A computer program of any complexity will have what are called conditional statements, that is, if a condition proves to be true then one course of action will follow; but if it is false, another course. It is decision-making at a very low level. Given the same set of information and conditions, a computer program will do exactly the same thing every time, without fail. It has no other choice because it has no mind of its own.

The cyber-world of Alpha at its innermost being is a complex of rote execution making every aspect of it a slave of unalterable habit. Yet, out of this rose characters who attained “emotions, pattern recognition, free will, the ability to hold contradictory views.” (p 45) Granted, they did not rise by a cyber-evolutionary mechanism; Travis says outright that he created them. But it is uncanny that such a versatile, intelligent, and freethinking cyber-entity could possibly come into being out of a make-up that is thoroughly bound to the will of another, regardless of how intelligent the ‘other’ is.

What exactly is free will? Must there be absolutely no outside influence in order for a decision to classify as having been made purely out of a free will? If that were so, there would be no such thing as free will.

A choice made out of free will does not mean it is a choice made blindly. My son may be considering three colleges to attend, and I may have a strong opinion about a certain one, offering argument after argument as to why that should be his choice. Even if those arguments prove effective, and my son chooses that college, his free will has not been violated. He freely chooses that college because, for whatever reason, that is the school that he wants to attend. It is his choice. I did not make the choice for him. Even if I threatened to disown him if he chose another, and as a result he chose contrary to what he would prefer, he is still exercising the choice freely. No one else is making the decision; it is his and his alone.

That’s why Adam’s deflection of blame to Eve is disingenuous, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate," Genesis 3:12. External influences did not absolve Adam’s guilt - he made the choice to listen to Eve and eat of the fruit. The same thing can be said for Eve - she listened to the serpent, was deceived by him, but it was her choice to eat in disobedience to what God had said. The serpent was unable to force Adam or Eve to eat against their will. It had to be the choice of each alone. Otherwise, they would not have been accountable, and man would not have fallen.

How heinous it is then, when we read of the King of Tyre (Lucifer/Satan): “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.” Ezekiel 28:15. A being made perfect in every way and having nothing but the most advantageous external influences was found at a point in time to have iniquity within. Unfathomable mystery. No wonder there is no purpose of God for his recovery.

So then, free will does not exclude external influences.

Free will and the Sinner

The scriptures say that there is none who does good (Romans 3:12) and that the carnal mind (the mind devoid of the Spirit of God and therefore unregenerate and unconverted) “is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be,” Romans 8:7; and “those who are in the flesh cannot please God,” Romans 8:8.

If the sinner is unable to do good, then he has not the free will to do good. But he does have the free will to do evil. He can only sin, and the choice to sin and the manner of sin is out of his own free will. No one forces the sinner to sin; he does so freely of his own choice and not of another.

Free will and the Saint

The saint is truly free, that is, he has the ability to choose good and resist evil. As a sinner, one can only sin; as a saint, one has a choice, to resist the temptation to sin, and do the good; or to succumb to temptation, and do the wrong.

The Cyber-Incarnation

There may be some mystery about the transfer of Nicholas’s personality into a newly created cyber-human, but the mystery is only that of a limited understanding of what and how nanobots work. And when all is said and done, the real Nicholas is still a real human, and nothing of him or in him is united to the digital Nicholas.

The mystery of the incarnation of the Son is not resolved through a keen knowledge of physics. The union of God and man in one person defies explanation; it is comprehensible in that one can conceive of a unity of the divine and human, but it is incomprehensible in that the unity itself is inexplicable.

The apparently supernatural power that the digital Nicholas exercised was ad hoc, programmed to meet an unexpected exigency in the cyber-world. The power of the incarnate Christ was for the most part not his own as the Second Person of the Trinity. Part of the humility of the incarnation was the reliance upon God the Holy Spirit to perform miraculous works, just as any human miracle worker of God did. The Spirit’s attendance of Christ is well documented, and because Christ's extraordinary works of power had its source in the Holy Spirit (not his own), the accusation of the Jewish leaders that Christ performed his wonders by the power of Satan was an unforgiveable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

The transfer of information to the cyber Nicholas explains his apparently instant knowledge about events and persons whom he had never met. In the New Testament, we have a peek into the nature of the communication between the Father and the Son. In John 12:28, Christ asks the Father to glorify his name, to which the Father responds audibly, in a voice some took for thunder, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.” Jesus explains that the voice was for their (the people who heard the voice) sakes. On that one occasion, it pleased the Father that others heard what Christ heard constantly.

The God Hater confronts the reader with some heavy philosophical and theological ideas. Whether these would be a challenge to the Atheist's faith, I'm not sure. But it may cause him to pause and think about some things that he never thought about before, and that could be the starting point of a journey to understanding.

The God Hater book link
Author’s web site
Author’s Facebook page

CSFF Blog Tour Participants

Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour (February 2011) - Day Two

2011-02-21T23:20:00.000-08:00

The God Hater, by Bill Myers.

Thanks to Simon and Schuster who kindly provided a copy of the book for review on the CSFF blog tour.

Mr. Myers lays out a disclaimer in his author’s note:

Then there’s that whole pesky issue of allegories. They only capture pieces of truth and are way too slippery to do much more. So, just as I would encourage you not to base your science upon this [the novel’s] science, the same should go for your theology. As I said in my novel Eli...if something doesn’t sound right or sticks in your throat, don’t waste your time reading this. Go to the original Source and see what it says.

This statement implies two things: that (a) at least some of the theology behind The God Hater may be wrong or (b) though it is not wrong, it is either confusing or contrary to the reader’s own views, in which case the reader is advised to go to the Bible and investigate the point of disagreement or confusion.

This brings us face-to-face with the constant concern of every Christian writer, that he conveys accurately the teaching of scripture on any given theological subject. Granted, there are theological truths that are difficult to understand, as Peter reveals about some of Paul’s epistles (2 Peter 3:16). And since we are not inspired writers in the same way that the holy apostles and prophets of the New Testament were (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21), we cannot guarantee that what we write is completely accurate.

Nevertheless, it is our responsibility to be as accurate and faithful to the truth of scripture as possible. If we find that we have difficulty in conveying that truth in the context of our novel, or through the imagery of its characters and events as in the genre Christian fantasy, it is better to abandon the effort and pursue something different.

A major difficulty for me is the employment of a Christ figure. Donita K. Paul’s Paladin of Dragonspell is an example. I found the character Paladin repulsive. The New Testament Christ was the one who declared (exegeted) the Father in all of his ways such that even a facial expression was revelatory, let alone body language. Paladin was a buddy-buddy type of fellow having none of the sacred sobriety of the biblical Christ. It is a questionable decision to include such a figure because it runs the risk of not conveying the character of God accurately; it tends to create a god in our image. It approaches blasphemy. A more extreme example is The Shack (Wm. Paul Young, a million-copy best seller), in which the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are fleshed out in terms of trite, crass behavior and profane human interactions, and the theology, in my estimation, is heretical blasphemy.

I want to trace broadly the events that take place in The God Hater from initial creation of a cyber-world to the intrusion into that world in the form of a cyber-incarnation. This is to provide a context for some thoughts on certain theological points that are affected by those events. Those thoughts will appear in my third post for this blog tour.

The cyber-world (c-world) is initially characterized by artificially intelligent cyber-humans (c-humans) capable of emotions, pattern recognition, free will, and holding contradictory views (p. 45). There must be no external interference. The free will of the c-human cannot be violated. Each philosophical system must grow organically from within the system (p. 67). This reduces to a survival-of-the-fittest mentality and as a result, c-world ends in self-extinction; c-humans kill each other off in the effort to survive (p 66).

Solution #1
Introduce dualism, the awareness that there is the material/physical on the one hand and the spiritual/metaphysical on the other. In Dr. Nicholas Mackenzie’s words, it is “the understanding that there are higher thoughts with higher standards than a simple materialistic world.” And, “It’s a belief in a greater good without the tyranny of a meddling dictator.” Travis’s lay interpretation is, “Just give them a sense of a greater reality.” Rebecca’s enhancement to Travis’s understanding is to give them “an interconnectedness to that Reality. They need to feel that what they do affects everything-- including themselves.” (pp 80, 81).

Solution #1 Fails
Exercising free will, c-humanity chooses nature over technology, i.e., nature is sacred and must not be meddled with. Travis astutely summarizes the three possibilities with regard to nature: (a) It is divine, (b) there is no difference between it and c-humanity, or (c) it is not real. Whatever view one takes, there is no compelling need to exercise authority over it (p. 97). As a result, rats are allowed to run wild leading to rampant disease, which results in the eventual extinction of c-humanity.

Solution #2
Rebecca postulates that the c-humans must not only be told about another reality (our world) but also about the humans of that world, about us, and that we have the answers for their survival. This is not considered cheating because it is telling the truth. Nicholas Mackenzie, the atheist philosopher, grudgingly acknowledges this inwardly:

“Nicholas’s jaw tightened. She was right, of course. The solution couldn’t be more obvious. At least now. And he hated it. He hated every aspect of it. An outside intelligence, a god, offering them assistance from outside their model. But it was true. They were watching and they could assist. Like it or not, that was the whole truth. And if Nicholas stood for anything, it was truth. Everything else was just fantasy and make-believe.” (p 100)

Again, free will must be preserved. Just inform c-humanity of our existence and give simple guidelines, nothing more (p 103).

The Implementation of Solution #2
Through Travis’s ingenious programming, Nicholas is able to speak directly to Alpha, a c-human (the cyber equivalent of Nicholas’s son who was killed years earlier) and thusly reveals his existence as Programmer, who programmed Alpha’s world. The immediate response of Alpha was to ask, “What do you want?” Programmer’s (Nicholas’s) reply is to exercise authority over his world. Alpha is sacred because he was programmed like real humans. The rats are not sacred; they are the cause of their dying. Alpha’s response to this revelation and charge is to react violently toward the rats and destroy them. Alpha is further charged to treat other c-humans as sacred, treat them as he would treat Programmer. (p 113-115)

The expectation is that Alpha would expound upon the basic rules of Programmer and apply them to various situations. This is exactly what happens. Alpha begins to develop a system of interpretation and application of Programmer’s basic Law. Programmer is elevated to a deity and a temple is erected in his honor.

The Introduction of The Virus
Rebecca places doubt in the mind of the c-woman, Saida, wife of Alpha, to question the authority of Programmer’s law and think of how appealing it would be to decide for herself what is right and wrong. She leads Saida to the back of the Temple where she presents a wealth of information via the internet. Saida and a growing number of others are drawn to this source of unlimited knowledge. Now, c-humanity has an alternate guide, based on an alternate source of knowledge from which they can pick and choose as they please. Programmer’s Law is no longer absolutely authoritative.

The Need for Personal Intervention, the Cyber-Incarnation
The virus infected c-humanity internally, in their minds. To erase it would be to interfere with their thinking and therefore with their free-will. The alternative is that someone speaks to them directly, that is:

“We create another member of their community. We download one of our own personalities into it so we can talk to them face-to-face; show them how they’re supposed to live.”

“You’re not serious?”

“Sure. That way, they still have free will. But instead of laying a bunch more rules on them, our guy talks to them in person. He stresses how important it is to resist the virus and follow our instructions. And--this is the kicker--he shows them how to live those instructions the way we originally intended.”
...
“It’s impossible to adequately capture every nuance of truth with words. To convey the truths of life...you have to live that life.” (p 143-144)

Dr. Nicholas Mackenzie’s mind is recorded (via nanobots) and transferred into a newly created c-human. The c-human is the cyber-incarnation of Mackenzie.

The Nature of the Cyber-Incarnation

(1) Otherworldly insight. c-Mackenzie receives instant information about his world and certain individuals in it. He learns of personal things about his fellow c-humans that are known only to them. He knows what is in c-man:

Travis continued, “She ran away when they tried making her pay on the Grid. Ever since, she’s been living with whoever gives her life units.”

Nicholas motioned to the main screen, where the image of himself and the girl were still frozen. “Go ahead and tell him that. Let him know.”

This time Travis gave no argument as he worked the keys. “Transferring her bio to him now.”

When he’d finished, he hit another key, bringing the original scene back to life.
...
Nicholas blinked. With his sudden information, he addressed the girl. “You were just a child, Dortha. It was not your fault.”

Her eyes widened, then squinted suspiciously. “How do you know me?” (p 172)

(2) Otherworldly power. c-Mackenzie receives the ability to heal from Travis who programs it into his cyber makeup. But to heal, the pain of the injury must be transferred somewhere else in order to keep the integrity of the program. It can’t be transferred to a rock, because the rock can’t feel the pain. It can’t be transferred to the one who inflicted the pain because it would coerce them into obeying out of fear and destroy their free will. The only solution is to transfer it to the one who heals, to c-Mackenzie himself. But in order for it to be fair to c-Mackenzie, it must be voluntary; he must be made aware of the suffering it will cause him, and he must freely choose to take the suffering on himself. (p 195)

Free will is a recurrent them in this overview, and I would like to discuss it in my next post. Additionally, I would like to comment on the nature of the cyber-incarnation as opposed to the biblical incarnation.

The God Hater book link
Author’s web site
Author’s Facebook page

CSFF Blog Tour Participants

Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour (February 2011) - Day One.

2011-02-20T21:34:00.000-08:00

The God Hater, by Bill Myers.

Thanks to Simon and Schuster who kindly provided a copy of the book for review on the CSFF blog tour.

Artificial intelligence is the pursuit of both fantasy and science. The God Hater by Bill Myers, is a literary effort of the former, whose purpose is to bring salient truths to light regarding the nature and character of man, human free will, and the existence of God.

The story begins with a locally televised show called God Talk where one of the main characters of the novel first appears, Dr Nicholas Mackenzie, atheist and professor of philosophy at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He proceeds to embarrass and demolish another guest, a pastor of a large church who is on the show to talk about his new book. Mackenzie argues the well-worn favorite objections of atheism to religion. Interestingly, those objections are briefly addressed later in the book, not by a Christian, but a former student whose faith was destroyed by Mackenzie himself.

Another main character is Dr Annie Brooks who teaches Molecular Biology and is a fellow professor at UCSB. Annie is a Christian, albeit a single mother. Annie and Nicholas are actually friends though their antithetical world and life views clash from time to time in the classroom. Nicholas visits Annie periodically having a special interest in her son, Rusty, having lost his own son years earlier.

The third personality is Travis (Nicholas’s brother) who becomes involved in a research project funded by a ‘bazillionaire,’ as Travis describes him. The project succeeds in creating a computer program akin to today’s games but in which the cyber-characters are far more advanced having “artificial intelligence...emotions, pattern recognition, free will, the ability to hold contradictory views,” (p. 41) and so on. The purpose of the project is to provide industry with a test environment to determine what to expect from the consumer, i.e., how will a certain product fare.

The project runs into its problems early on. Cyber-mankind knows only of the basic premise, survival of the fittest, which is exercised consistently always resulting in self-extermination. With no intervention allowed by the developers, and with no other input, the cyber-humans always destroy themselves. Travis brings his philosopher brother in to resolve the problem. The single restriction: there must be no violation of the cyber-humans' free will.

To get beyond this, Nicholas offers the solution to make the cyber-humans aware of a greater reality, introducing brute dualism, the view that there are two realities, the physical and metaphysical. This doesn’t violate the cyber-human’s free will, it simply makes them aware of non-physical realities and it is to be their choice alone as to how to live in light of it. Nicholas is convinced this will change the pattern of self-extinction.

This fails also, and Nicholas is called in again. The problem is that the cyber-world chooses to hold ‘nature’ in highest esteem and therefore allows it to carry on without intrusion. This leads to the spread of disease through rats who run free. Eventually, cyber-mankind dies out through pestilence.

Nicholas ponders the problem and comes up with a solution that he’s not entirely comfortable with: make cyber-humanity aware of a higher authority, the authority of Programmer (Nicholas, though he is not actually the programmer), who in turn charges the cyber-humans to take control and become stewards of their own world. The rationale: they, the cyber-humans, are more sacred than the world (nature) itself; they must exercise authority over it.

This too has its problems and the solutions that follow come uncomfortably closer and closer to a theistic view, so much so that eventually one from Programmer’s world enters into the world in cyber-incarnated form. The incarnate personality is none less than Dr Mackenzie himself.

Interwoven into this is corporate espionage and betrayal, and the intriguing factor that the key cyber-human is Mackenzie’s own lost son who becomes the authoritative interpreter and applier of Programmer’s decree.

Non-Christian and Christian philosophy constantly clash, though the language used to express this is dubiously similar to biblical language. The incredulity of the language is especially stark as it is used by non-Christian characters (e.g., “You are sacred because you are programmed to be like us”; “Treat one another as though you are sacred. Treat one another as you would treat me.”)

The novel presents the reader with a number of profound philosophical issues with the intent to demonstrate that the resolution of those issues is found only through a Christian, biblical approach. Yet this is done in such a non-technical way that the average reader, with some effort, can readily sort them out.

The story itself makes the book a fair page-turner. This in spite of the characters being stereotypical and predictable, and the writing itself, average.

The God Hater book link
Author’s web site
Author’s Facebook page

CSFF Blog Tour Participants

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God - Part 11

2011-01-09T19:45:00.000-08:00

.
Discerning God’s Will: Santa Clause and the Holocaust

(This is part eleven in a series that examines the view of Justice Boshoff who advocates that God’s word comes to us personally and directly from the Holy Spirit through prayer for wisdom and that the scriptures are a hindrance to hearing the word of God. You can read a transcript of two of his You-Tube videos: According to the Scriptures, You Won't Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier.)

Throughout this series, we have argued that the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are necessary for discerning God’s will, and that even Justice Boshoff, who disparages the scriptures as the means to know God’s will, relies on the scriptural word itself to defend his position - a contradiction if I ever saw one.

What does it mean to discern (know) God’s will? Usually the question is asked with regard to a specific matter such as, Should I attend this college or that college? Should I marry Wendy? Should I marry Bill? Should I buy this car or that car, or keep the old one for now? Should I be an architect, an engineer, a soldier, an entrepreneur, a politician, lawyer, doctor, athlete, and so on. As far as I can tell, Justice Boshoff would say, that we need to hear a word from God, personally, through prayer, and that the scriptures are a hindrance in hearing that word.

Consider this, Should I tell my children that there is a Santa Clause, and that on every night before Christmas, he flies around the world in a sleigh and eight tiny reindeer delivering toys to good little children, and that he knows if you’ve been bad or good? There are many Christian parents who tell their children precisely this. [1] Some of those parents may think that the matter is trivial and the consideration of its propriety unnecessary - it’s all just a part of growing up and makes Christmas a more wondrous time for the child.

But is it trivial? Not when we want to be sure that all we do is in accordance with the will of God and that forces the question again, How do we know the will of God?

There are some things about which we do not have to pray for wisdom, because we already have the answer in black and white: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,’ Exodus 20:16, Deut 5:20. This is a prohibition to testify or say a word against one’s neighbor that is not true. Whatever statements are made about your neighbor, they must not be lies. The principle beneath this command is that God forbids lying and requires that we speak the truth. Succinctly stated, the command not to bear false witness presupposes the command, ‘You shall not lie.’[2]

In light of this, the necessary question a parent should ask: “Is telling my children that there is a Santa Clause a violation of the commandment not to lie?” The prayer for wisdom at this point is for discernment regarding that question. Justice Boshoff would say that we must wait for a word from the Holy Spirit, dispensed through prayer. But we hold that the word, which comes from the Holy Spirit, has already been spoken, and it is recorded in the scriptures.

In seeking to know God’s will through the Bible, there are often times when the answer is not straightforward, that is, there is no single statement that determines one way or another whether an anticipated act on our part is morally right or wrong. In the Santa Clause case, we are confronted with two problematic questions:

Does the Bible indicate there is ever a time:

(a) When not telling the truth is actually not a lie?
(b) In which God would condone the telling of a lie?

As a writer of Christian fantasy, I am concerned with (a). There are those who condemn Christian fantasy because at bottom, they see it as a lie (Christian Fantasy is an Oxymoron). The idea is that since a fantasy may have such characters as talking animals, or flying horses, or wizards and witches with magical powers, and that since these characters are not real but a blatant fabrication, they are in reality a lie. There are reasons I do not think Christian fantasy is a lie, fundamentally because it is not an attempt to deceive but to tell a story whose characters and circumstances happen to be fantastically fictional, which fact the reader is fully aware. But in order for me to write fantasy as a Christian with a clear conscience, I have to evaluate what the scriptures say on a variety of things in order to discern God’s will on the matter.[3] And likewise must the parent assess biblical tenets (based on a reading and analysis of the scriptures) in order to determine whether he may or may not tell his children the fantasy of Santa Clause.[4]

As regards (b), one might contemplate Nazi Germany. Suppose you are a Christian living in Germany around 1942 and you know that the neighbor across the street is providing sanctuary for a Jewish family. The Gestapo call you into their station and bluntly ask you if you know of anyone in the neighborhood who is protecting Jews. You may refuse to answer which is a certain sign that you know something. Given the ruthlessness of Hitler’s secret police, not only would it go bad for you, but almost certainly, the neighborhood would be turned on end until the Jews are found. What do you do?

Suppose you are the one who is protecting the Jews in your house, and the authorities, suspicious that Jews are being sheltered somewhere, come to question you. You are asked, “Are you hiding Jews in your house?” If you answer yes, not only are you in trouble, but you have certainly sealed the death of those who are trusting in your protection. What do you do?

If there is any scriptural warrant in which God condones lying, we must either find a direct prophetic word saying so, or as is often the case, discern the principle through the historical narrative of scripture. Is there such an example?

The case of Rahab and her lie to those pursuing Israeli spies whom she was hiding in her apartment in the city wall is a prominent candidate. Was she wrong in telling those seeking the spies that the spies had already departed thus sending them on a wild goose chase, giving the Israelis the opportunity to escape? There are some who say she did nothing wrong; others say that lying is not condoned under any circumstances and that she was wrong, though it did providentially work for the good of the spies and the nation of Israel.[5]

Rahab illustrates how an answer to a specific question regarding God’s will in a given situation [6] is not always straightforward. We need not an inward spiritual word from the Holy Spirit (as Justice Boshoff holds), for he has already spoken in the scriptures. What we do need is enlightenment from the Spirit, that he may open our eyes of understanding through the scriptures, Eph 1:15-19; Ps 119:18.

---------------------------------------
[1] My parents did, and the Easter rabbit too, which rabbit I was smart enough to rule out because it was an animal – but Santa Clause? Well, he was a person, a human as far as I could discern from the testimony of my parents and other adults who confirmed that testimony. As a child of four, Santa Clause’s humanity made it all plausible...so long as I ignored the flying sleigh and reindeer.

[2] The presupposition of an underlying principle is also present in the command not to commit adultery (Exod 20:14, Deut 5:18). This command forbidding adultery is based on the ordained sexual behavior created at the beginning in Adam and Eve, husband and wife. This created order excludes premarital sex, homosexuality (male and female), and in its purest prohibition, the inward lusting of another for sexual pleasure, (Matt 5:27, 28: You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I [Christ] say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart).

[3] See my article, The Literary Genre of Fantasy and Its Use in Imparting Christian Truth which considers some of the Biblical support for the genre.

[4] Christian fantasy has fantastical characters like Santa Clause, and one might argue that if it is not wrong to tell such a tale, then it is not wrong to tell your children that there is a Santa Clause. But there is an obvious difference - your children think Santa Clause is real and believe in him; the reader of Christian fantasy knows the characters are not real and does not believe in them. This matter of faith is at the heart of the problem for as Christians we are to bring our children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:4) - Christ is the object of faith, not Santa Clause.

[5] I am inclined to think that Rahab’s lie was condoned by God. There are those who do not deserve to know the truth, and to tell them the truth will make you complicit in their evil intentions and deeds. But we have to be very careful that we don’t use Rahab’s example to lie willy nilly because it is convenient. I would say that only under such dire circumstances as Rahab’s or the Holocaust can one even consider the possibility of lying. I have never been in such a situation.

[6] I am not advocating ‘Situation Ethics,’ the idea that the factors of a given situation determine what is a morally right or wrong course of action. Such a philosophy allows an ‘anything goes, as long as it hurts no one else’ or ‘one must do what is best for himself’ ethic. This leads to all kinds of evil behavior such as abortion on demand. Taken to its logical end, it allows one to establish his own relative standard of right and wrong on the premise that ‘what is wrong for you may not be wrong for me,’ a logically contradictory premise.

My use of the word ‘situation’ is a statement of the obvious – we seek to know what God’s will is for us in our situation now and we do that in part through examining how God worked in a situation of an event of the past, Rahab being an example.

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God - Part 10

2011-01-06T20:00:00.000-08:00

.
The Davidic Example as an Antidote to Boshoff’s Disapproval of Scripture

(This is part ten in a series that examines the view of Justice Boshoff who advocates that God’s word comes to us personally and directly from the Holy Spirit through prayer for wisdom and that the scriptures are a hindrance to hearing the word of God. You can read a transcript of two of his You-Tube videos: According to the Scriptures, You Won't Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier.)

Psalm 1:1, 2 (Counsel and the Law of the Lord)

David rejects the advice and wisdom of the ungodly man. His point of view is that the ungodly man's wisdom is contrary to the Law of God and therefore contrary to God's revealed will.

For David, advice and wisdom come through the Law of God, the scriptures of his day. True and acceptable wisdom in the eyes of God is the wisdom that he imparts (as opposed to the counsel of ungodly men), and the source of that wisdom is the Law of the Lord.

If David had in mind a singular work known as 'The Law,' we may surmise that work to be Deuteronomy, commonly called ‘The Book of the Law.’ [1] More broadly, given a conservative view, the scriptures of David's day was the Pentateuch (Genesis - Deuteronomy), Joshua, Judges, and possibly Ruth; Job is also a likely candidate since it may be the oldest book of the Bible.

The appellation of ‘The Law’ used by Jesus probably is a reference to the Pentateuchal writings, but at the least, it refers to Deuteronomy. But that it refers to more than a single volume is discernable in Jesus's use of the formula, ‘The Law and the Prophets,’ in which he distinguished the Old Testament prophets (major and minor) from ‘The Law.’ This suggests that ‘The Law’ was a collection of sacred writings in the same manner as the prophetic books.

If ‘The Law’ is such a collection, it refers not to just the ten commandments per se, but also the history leading up to their official codification as well as the history that followed, i. e., the recorded history of the Pentateuch. That history provides the redemptive historical context of the ten commandments. The relevant point for our discussion is this:

David understood that the Pentateuchal record of the application of the ten commandments in the early history of redemption were beneficial to him as well and served as instructive in his day.

In Psalm 119 David uses a variety of terms to identify what it is that he delights in and meditates on; they are God's word, testimonies, commandments, statutes, law, rules, precepts, wondrous works (in redemptive history) all of which were in the scriptures of his day. These scriptures in which David delighted and on which he meditated included God's dealings with mankind in particular situations at various points in redemptive history. David meditated on the record of that history of an earlier time and saw in it instruction and guidance. He did not think it was irrelevant to his day or his situation.

Psalm 1:2 (The Relevance of the Law for David)

Those who say that the scriptures are a barrier to understanding God's will should think on Psalm 1. Meditation on God's word/law is the Davidic example. David testifies to the profitability of the scriptures to make the simple wise, to enlighten the eyes, rejoice the heart; the judgments of the Lord are more desirable than fine gold and sweeter than honey (Ps 19:7-10). David tells others of God’s marvelous works (Ps 9:1; 26:7; 66:3, 5; Ps 71:17; 73:28; 77:11, 12) which are recorded in his scriptures. In Psalm 119, David tirelessly exalts the virtues of God’s Law, bemoaning the transgression of it (119:136), hiding it in his heart that he might not violate it (119:11), acknowledging the need for God’s help to keep it (119:33-38, 125), thankful for affliction because it brought him back to it (119:67, 71, 75, 92, 143); becoming wiser than teachers and sages (119:99, 100).

Psalm 78, a contemplation of Asaph, suggests that the wondrous works that David proclaimed to others were those that God performed in Israel’s midst as recorded in the Pentateuch.[2] Even if the works David had in mind were those recent victories over Israel’s enemies, battles in which he himself participated, he understands the significance of those victories only in the light of the historical word of God written before his day, in particular, the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. David relied upon the relevance of the scriptures for his day.

Psalm 1:2 (Delighting in the Law of the Lord)

David delighted in God’s Law and continually meditated on it (Ps 119:5, 23, 27, 48, 78, 97, 99, 148). David also meditated on God’s wondrous works and his majesty (Ps 63:6; 77:12; 143:5; 145:5) which were revealed to him through the scriptures of his day. If the written word of God was not applicable to his situation, why did he hold it in such high regard? Why did he devote so much time and effort in meditation on them?

The Davidic example does not suggest to any degree that the inspired writings of his day were obsolete, irrelevant, inappropriate, or a barrier to spiritual wisdom and knowledge.

[1] The Book of the Law is amply documented in the Old Testament (Deut 17:18; 28:58, 61; 29:21; 30:10; 31:24, 26; Josh 8:31, 34; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6; 22:8, 11; 23:24; 2 Chron 17:9; 25:4; 34:14, 15; Nehemiah 8:1, 3, 8, 18; 9:3) and there is no reason to think that David did not have it in his day. The Lord charges Joshua: This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. David followed Joshua’s example to meditate on the Law of God. The Book of the Law was probably a reference to Deuteronomy (Paul cites Deuteronomy in Gal 3:10 and refers to the source as ‘The book of the law’), and its biblically documented existence argues in favor of rather than against the existence of other Pentateuchal books in David’s time.

[2] In Ps 78, Asaph reflects on not only God’s redemptive acts in bringing Israel out of Egypt, but also on the rebellion of Israel during that time. This reflection was intended to be instructive to the Israel of his day. He did this in accordance with the Deuteronomic charge to teach the children and their descendants so that they may never forget God’s great redemptive acts (Ps 78:5, 6; Deut 4:9; 6:20, 21). Asaph not only contemplated God’s great works in the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, but also pointedly mentions the constant rebellion of Israel in spite of God’s mighty works; certainly, Asaph was concerned about the Israel of his day, that the people would not likewise fall into the same sins. A principle we may take from this is that the scriptures of an earlier day are applicable to a situation of a later day.

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God - Part 9

2011-01-04T21:16:00.000-08:00

.

The Promise of the Spirit to Guide into All Truth, Part 2.

(This is part nine in a series that examines the view of Justice Boshoff who advocates that God’s word comes to us personally and directly from the Holy Spirit through prayer for wisdom and that the scriptures are a hindrance to hearing the word of God. You can read a transcript of two of his You-Tube videos: According to the Scriptures, You Won't Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier.)

The disciples were the main body of the apostolate. Part of Christ’s earthly ministry was to prepare them for that special office. When Christ made the promise to his disciples that the Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:12-15), it anticipated their role as apostle. Christ made the promise directly to the Twelve, but broadly, it included those who were not of that circle but, nevertheless, were to fill the yet-future office of apostle.

The case of Judas Iscariot. Peter broaches the issue of Judas’s demise and explains to the assembly that, as prophesied in the Old Testament, Judas fell from his office and another should replace him:

"For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ' Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, ' Let another take his office.' Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, "You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."

And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Acts 1:20-26

Matthias, who was not of the original twelve, was chosen to replace Judas. He was a qualified candidate because he accompanied the disciples during the whole ministry of Christ, from the baptism of John until he was taken up at the ascension. In answer to the Eleven’s prayer, the divine choice of Matthias was made through the casting of lots. The promise of the Spirit to the disciples now included Matthias.

Matthias is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. But Peter’s salient points regarding the need for an apostolic replacement argue that the special office of apostle was peculiar and limited, and only one with special qualification (personal accompaniment of the Lord in his earthly ministry) was acceptable. Because Christ made the promise of the Spirit directly to his disciples whose later identity was that of the exclusive apostolic body, and because the nature of their apostolic ministry cohesively fulfills that promise, there is strong warrant to take that promise as limited to a few of the first century apostolic era.

That the office of apostle was not exclusive to the original Eleven is evident in Matthias, whose appointment was revealed through the casting of lots. There was another who, though not one of the original disciples, nonetheless, became an apostle by divine appointment.

Paul’s Apostleship and Its Relevance to Christ’s Promise to Guide Into All Truth. It was through the special office of apostle that Christ’s teaching, which began while on earth, was completed after his ascension. Perhaps the role of the apostle is best understood in terms of Paul’s apostleship.

Paul’s call to be an apostle is undeniable. He was an apostle on the same level as the original Eleven. The fact that he did not participate in the day-to-day instruction of Christ during his earthly ministry, as was true of Matthias, did not negate his apostleship, for Paul had personal interaction with and instruction from the risen Lord:

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:11,12; cf 1 Cor 9:1, ‘Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord’).

This appears to have happened shortly after his conversion, and very possibly somewhere in Arabia:

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Gal 1:15-17.

Paul’s apostleship was equal to Peter’s:

...they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles). Gal 2:7,8.

The apostolate, of whom Paul was a member, had an authority that none others shared, including the prophets. The New Testament prophets were agents of God’s word, but nowhere do we see a prophet exercising the authority of an apostle. Paul exercises his apostolic authority in the church in absolute terms: Paul ordained (cf 1 Cor 7:17) certain practices regarding a variety of matters: one’s calling as a slave or freeman, marriage and remarriage, sexual behavior between married couples, the mixed marriage of a believer and unbeliever (1 Cor 7), the question of eating meat offered to idols in a pagan ceremony (1 Cor 8-10), the administration of the Lord’s supper (1 Cor 11), the regulation and practice of tongues (1 Cor 12-14), the place of women in the Church (1 Cor 14).

As a conveyer of truth into which he was guided by the Spirit (in keeping with the promise of Christ), he explained the nature and significance of the resurrection (1 Cor 15). Paul orders the churches in Galatia to amass a collection for the saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1,2; cf Rom 15:25-27). An order requires an authority behind it, and such was Paul’s order having the authority of an apostle.

The Mode of The Spirit’s Guidance Into All Truth. The fulfillment of the promise of the Spirit to guide into all truth is not described as coming through an internal word in response to a prayer for personal wisdom; it is through the sovereign external communication of the Spirit to the apostle who in turn is to communicate that to the church:

To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery... Eph 3:8, 9.

Other examples come to us.

1 Cor 7:40, when Paul expresses his authoritative judgment regarding widows and remarriage; that judgment came as a result of the Spirit of God’s guidance on the matter:

“But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment --- and I think I also have the Spirit of God.”

1 Cor 2, in which Paul repeatedly assures the Corinthians that his original preaching ministry to them was not words of man’s wisdom, but the revelation of God’s Spirit, and Paul expressed that revelation in words that the Holy Spirit taught:

And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God, 1 Cor 2:4, 5.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, 1 Cor 2:12, 13.

For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ, 1 Cor 2:16.

1 John 1:1ff, where John explains that what they (the apostles of Christ) had seen and heard from Christ they declare to the saints among whom the readers of his letters were included. The whole letter, as with all other New Testament inspired writings, is the written record of the Spirit’s bringing to remembrance of not only what Jesus had taught them but also those things that he had yet to tell them but did not before his ascension.

The Spirit’s guidance into truth was promised to a few whose ministry was to make that truth known through preaching and, more permanently, through writing. In light of Paul’s remarks cited above regarding the Spirit’s instructional role, it appears that the Spirit’s guidance into truth for the apostles was akin to the way the prophetic word came to the Old Testament prophets, who spoke as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit, 2 Peter 1:21. That word came in the act of speaking publicly; in the case of Paul, and the other apostles, it came through public preaching. It was not a word that came inwardly and privately in response to prayer, as Mr. Boshoff teaches.

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God - Part 8

2011-01-02T23:42:00.000-08:00

.

The Promise of the Spirit to Guide into All Truth, Part 1.

(This is part eight in a series that examines the view of Justice Boshoff who advocates that God’s word comes to us personally and directly from the Holy Spirit through prayer for wisdom and that the scriptures are a hindrance to hearing the word of God. You can read a transcript of two of his You-Tube videos: According to the Scriptures, You Won't Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier.)

Mr. Boshoff cites the promise of Christ to his disciples to send them the Holy Spirit after his departure who will guide them into all truth. Mr. Boshoff applies that promise to himself and to all Christian’s today (unwittingly violating his rule that we cannot apply the scriptures to our situation). Since Mr. Boshoff appeals to this scripture in making his case, he deems it important and meaningful to us in our situation today. Let us examine the biblical text and make a determination on the validity of Mr. Boshoff’s application.

These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 14:25, 26

But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. John 15:26, 27.

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. John 16:12-15.

How are we to understand this promise of Christ to guide into all truth?

The Recipients of the Promise. It is a promise made to his disciples and not to the body of saints at large. The disciples were to become the holy apostles of the church and this promise was in anticipation of their fulfillment of that office. The apostles, along with apostolic era prophets, comprise the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20, 3:5, 4:11), which is the body of Christ (Eph 1:22,23), the whole community of saints of all ages (Eph 1:10; 2:11-16, 19; 3:6).

Paul, as promised by Christ, and as an apostle called by Christ, was guided by the Holy Spirit into the truth of the great mystery that had been hidden in ages past but finally revealed to the apostles and prophets. The mystery was hidden and then revealed, it was truth that the disciples were not ready to bear, but after Christ’s session at the right hand of God, he revealed that mystery to Paul. Paul, in fulfillment of his calling as an apostle of Christ, explains this mystery to the saints in Ephesus, that the Gentile believers were no longer outside the commonwealth of Israel, but were now fellow citizens with the saints of the Old Testament who had come before but now in heaven, and with those of the New Testament era and still living on earth (Eph 1:10). Listen to the revelation of the marvelous mystery as he writes:

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh --- who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands --- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. Eph 2:11-13.

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Eph 2:19, 20.

Paul writes along the same lines again later in the epistle and specifically identifies the Spirit as the one who brought this revelation to him:

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles --- if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. Eph 3:1-7.

In this text, Paul identifies the recipient of this revelation of the Spirit as the apostles and prophets of the New Testament era. There were many things Christ had yet to reveal, but his disciples were not ready to bear them, presumably because a good portion of it had to do with his coming crucifixion and resurrection, a concept that was a stumbling block to their clear understanding of Christ’s work (Matt 16:22,23). Christ was going to leave them and afterwards send them his Holy Spirit to bring to remembrance not only the things he had taught them while with them on earth, but also other things which he had not told them, things that were yet to come to them through the Spirit after his departure into heaven.

The ‘truth’ into which the disciples were guided after Christ’s ascension was a completion of that body of truth he had begun to teach them while in their midst, and the fulfilling of that promise could only take place within that small circle of men who were called to be Apostles. The context of what we learn about the apostles in the New Testament requires us to understand that Jesus’s promise of being guided into truth by the Holy Spirit was exclusively for his apostles.

One may object to the exclusion of any outside the small body of disciples as recipients of this Spirit guided truth. Paul was not among them; does that not prove that the promise was not exclusive to the disciples and to exclude others is a blatant error? Does not Paul’s example vie more toward the position that the promise of the Spirit’s guidance is to be extended to all Christians, of every age since the Lord departed? We will find the answer to that is no.

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God - Part 7

2010-12-21T21:49:00.000-08:00

.

The Derivative Word Of God and Its Implications for Today.

(This is part seven in a series that examines the view of Justice Boshoff who advocates that God’s word comes to us personally and directly from the Holy Spirit through prayer for wisdom and that the scriptures are a hindrance to hearing the word of God. You can read a transcript of two of his You-Tube videos: According to the Scriptures, You Won't Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier.)

We should distinguish, on the one hand, between those words that are verbalized (whether oral or written) as a result of the oversight of God’s Spirit, and those words, on the other, in which there is no such oversight, but nevertheless convey accurately God’s thoughts. The former are a supernatural product and are intrinsically God’s words. The latter communicate the thought and meaning of the supernatural product and therefore are derivatively the word of God. The inspired words of the Bible are the very words of God by which he discloses to us his nature and purposes. The kerygmatic words (preaching) of men down through Church history are an exposition of the inscripturated words; insofar as they convey the meaning of those original words, they are in a derivative and secondary way the words of God.

The kerygmatic word of our day is not new revelation, that is, it is not the medium of a new self-disclosing word of God; nor is it the product of a supernatural overseeing of the Holy Spirit. Both the original and derived word have authority, but the difference is this: without the supernatural word there is no derivative word. Without the inspired word of the apostles and prophets, there is no source or basis on which an uninspired statement can be made with any certainty of its truthfulness or authority in its claims.

What implications may we draw for the Christian in his situation today? The apostolic word of God is beneficial not only to the first recipients of the original word, but also to others who can draw implications for their present situation from that original (1 Cor 10:6-11; 2 Tim 3:15-17). The original word addressing the original situation is the basis on which a derivative word may address a future situation.

Contrary to Mr. Boshoff’s position that the scriptures can only lead us to Christ but have no further word for us in our situation, the Bible, as the inspired word of God, serves as the basis for drawing examples, principles, and implications that are derivatively the word of God addressing us in our situation now. It is the charge of the pastor-teachers who are gifts given to the Church, Eph 4:11. The pastor-teacher must be able to teach, 1 Tim 3:2; 2 Tim 2:2, 24, “holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict,” Titus 1:9.

But Mr. Boshoff speaks disparagingly of those who are ordained elders in the church, who exercise their commission to teach sound doctrine:

“Some people say that what God wanted to say He said and it is written in the scriptures. That is a lie my friend, because God is not dead, God is alive. The churches want you to believe that God is dead because they want to tell you that God speaks through them to you. They want to keep you confined. Capture. They want to capture you. They want to tell you that they will interpret for you what God is saying. They have no knowledge of God at all. Nothing! They don't know Jesus.”

There is no such belittling of the pastor-teacher in the New Testament. He is called to teach, exposit the words of scripture and apply them to our situation because of their four-fold profitability. Through the pastor-teacher’s sound explication of scripture, he makes the sinner wise unto salvation and the man of God complete and equipped for every good work, (2 Tim 3:15-17).

With the entrance of the Incarnate Word into the world, God’s speaking in this present evil age reached its climactic expression (Heb 1:1, 2; John 1:14, 18; Jude 3), and the kerygmatic preaching of the apostolic era was its denouement. The scriptures are the permanent record of God’s word and the exposition of it is the means by which that word reaches the ears of God’s people today.

There is a dearth of sound, expository preaching in today’s church. God’s people are suffering for lack of it. To accommodate the sinner for fear of offending him, the sermon has been divested of its power by replacing the exposition of scripture with stories, humor, positive thinking, prosperity theology, and step-by-step self-help guidelines. The truth of God’s absolute holiness, man’s utter sinfulness, and the grace and mercy that comes only through Christ’s atonement and resurrection are nearly absent. The exclusivity of the cross is replaced with a false gospel that ceases to call men to repentance and faith in Christ alone; the power of the gospel to save from our sin and sinfulness is forgotten.

Expository preaching is the derivative word of God; through it, we hear God’s voice today. Without it, the church falls into false doctrine, fails to recognize sin, loses its identity as a chosen people who has been called to holiness and not to uncleanness, leaves the straight path and fails to find it again.

Through the exposition of scripture, the Spirit of God opens the eyes of our understanding so that we, as God’s people, know what is the hope of our calling, the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and the exceeding greatness of God’s power toward us which he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead (Eph 1:17-20).

Through the meticulous explanation of scripture and its application to our present situation, the believer is renewed in the spirit of his mind so that he puts on the new man and puts off the old (Eph 4:20-24). He walks less and less as unwise, and more and more with wisdom, understanding what the will of the Lord is (Eph 5:15-17).

The people of God in every age must hear the word of God. In the time between the advents, from the apostolic era until Christ returns, that word comes to us derivatively through preaching that is a faithful, exposition of scripture (2 Tim 4:2; Tit 1:3).

Are the pews empty? Exposit the scriptures from the pulpit; let the word of God be heard. God’s people will come because they love the law of the Lord; it will refresh them, bringing continuous revival. It will convict them, bringing repentance and purity to the church. It will instruct them making them wiser than all ungodly counselors. Above all, it will glorify the One whose word is preached.

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God - Part 6

2010-12-15T21:01:00.000-08:00

.

The Adequacy of Human Speech as a Medium for Divine Speech.

(This is part six in a series that examines the view of Justice Boshoff who advocates that God’s word comes to us personally and directly from the Holy Spirit through prayer for wisdom and that the scriptures are a hindrance to hearing the word of God. You can read a transcript of two of his You-Tube videos: According to the Scriptures, You Won't Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier.)

Can human language properly serve as a medium through which God’s speech may be heard? That is a fair question. Another way to state the question is to contend that God’s speech necessarily means divine words expressing divine thoughts, and divine thoughts are so far above human thoughts it is absurd to think human language has the capacity to suitably express those divine thoughts. May we not draw that conclusion from scripture itself?

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8, 9

It may seem a remarkable claim that human language is able to express the breathed-out language of God. But in fact, it is very suited for that purpose; the text just cited illustrates the point in two ways.

First, though the human language of Is 55:8, 9 (Hebrew) communicates the truth that God’s thoughts are incomprehensible, that does not mean that nothing can be known of God’s thoughts. Rather, incomprehensibility means that God’s thoughts cannot be fully known to us as they are to God himself. Cornelius Van Til, former professor of Westminster Theological Seminary, was fond of saying that we think God’s thoughts after him. Our thoughts are not identical to his (otherwise, we would be God) but they are analogous, similar, akin to his thoughts so that we do know something of what God thinks.

Second, we may observe that the truth itself regarding a profound difference between God’s thinking and man’s thinking is actually revealed to us from God through human speech, through the words of the text. We understand that there is a difference. How did we gain that understanding? Because God spoke through the human language of Isaiah.

All speech, in its most fundamental character, is the communication of information. By definition, it is meaningful and understandable; otherwise, there is no communication. The observation that language is meaningful may seem superfluous - everybody knows that, it’s a given. But why is it meaningful? Why are humans able to communicate verbally with one another? Why are they not like the brute beast who has no such capacity?

The short answer is that we are made in God’s image and share some of his attributes. From eternity, the intra-Trinitarian fellowship was enhanced by divine speech; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, needing nothing outside of their being, completely satisfied and happy in their inter-personal communion, existed in a fellowship marked by verbal communication.

John 3:28-30 sheds light on intra-Trinitarian dialogue. Jesus is about to publicly reveal his coming death with the preamble that he is very troubled over it, though it is the very purpose he has come into the world. True to his desire to always honor his Father, even in the face of the cross, Jesus calls out to the Father:

“Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.” Therefore, the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, “An angel has spoken to Him.” Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake."

The Son speaks to the Father and the Father answers the Son. When Jesus said the ‘voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake,’ he did not mean that God was speaking to the people instead of him. He meant that the voice came audibly, for their sakes, so that they could hear with their own ears God speaking to the Son. What Jesus heard every day of his life, the voice of his Father, was made audible to the people. What they heard on that special occasion, Jesus heard daily (cf John 8:26-28). It is preposterous to think that such dialogue between the Father and the Son began only after the incarnation. John 1:1, 2 reveals that “the Word was with God” from the beginning. The Greek word for ‘with’ is better translated ‘toward’ signifying a face-to-face relationship. Such a relationship implies fellowship, which implies communication.

We may draw the same conclusion for dialogue between the Son and the Holy Spirit (John 16:13 in context of John 15:26).

God’s speech is the pattern on which all human speech is designed. The first recorded words of God are “Let there be light,” or simply, “Light be!” Genesis 1:3. It is divine speech, translated into human language, having a meaning that we humans can understand. God’s speech is translatable into and understandable in terms of human language.

Since it was God who spoke first and human language came afterwards, we may understand that human language is analogous of divine language. Human speech is patterned after God’s speech. God’s speech is the paradigm that human language follows. Grammatical rules, syntactical relationships, and meaningful vocabulary are intrinsic to human language because they are intrinsic to God’s language. That is why human language is suited as a medium for expressing God’s speech. When human language is enlisted to express God thoughts as they are in the words, “Let there be light,” those human words are God’s words using the grammar, syntax, and verbal meanings of a human language that is analogous to God’s speech.

We may take another example of human speech as the vehicle through which divine speech is expressed. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians.

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe, 1 Thess 2:13.

The human language of Paul was directly and immediately the word of God. We understand this only to be possible in terms of the superintending work of the Holy Spirit. But unless human language in and of itself is capable of articulating divine speech, it would be unable, even through the oversight of the Holy Spirit, to express the words of God.

We insist then that the scriptures are written in a language that is analogous of divine language, and as such are particularly suited to express God’s words. Human language is not merely suitable, but by way of inspiration it becomes divine-human language, the out-breathed words of God expressed in human speech. Whenever we read a New Testament letter of Paul to a church in Ephesus, or Corinth, or Rome, or Thessalonica, or to an individual as Timothy, Titus, or Philemon, Paul’s speech is God’s speech, and his words are God’s words. As such, it is God speaking to the Church or the human recipient; it is meaningful and communicates God’s will and purpose addressing the situation.

The question then, is God’s speech that addresses a situation in a previous era pertinent to our situation today? Is there any meaning for us now in what he said to his people long ago? Succinctly, does God speak to us today through the scriptures? Part five of this series (The Relevancy of God’s Word in Every Age) would argue affirmatively emphasizing Paul’s use of Old Testament scripture and his observation that scripture has a four-fold profitability (2 Tim 3:16) for more than just the original hearers. The next article in the series will consider how the expository sermon is derivatively the word of God.

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God - Part 5

2010-12-13T04:13:00.000-08:00

.

The Relevancy of God’s Written Word in Every Age.

(This is part five in a series that examines the view of Justice Boshoff who advocates that God’s word comes to us personally and directly from the Holy Spirit through prayer for wisdom and that the scriptures are a hindrance to hearing the word of God. You can read a transcript of two of his You-Tube videos: According to the Scriptures, You Won't Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier.)

Paul would disagree with Mr. Boshoff’s position that the inscripturated word of the past is irrelevant to those of a later generation. Paul makes special reference to the written record of the wilderness experience of Israel and reveals that they were written for the benefit of his own generation:

Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.

Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play." We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer.

Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. 1 Cor 10:6-11 (ESV)

Paul did not refrain from applying the Old Testament Scriptures to the Church in Corinth. He did not think the wilderness situation of Israel was so unrelated to the situation of a body of believers in a thriving city several hundred years later, that it was useless to draw any application from it. Through the ordinary use of language, logic, and reason, he understood the written words of the Old Testament account of Israel’s experience in the wilderness. From that understanding he drew the conclusion that Israel’s behavior served as an example of how God’s people are not to act, and that to behave that way had severe consequences under the displeasure of God.

Paul explains to Timothy that there is a fourfold profitability in scripture: all scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 2 Tim 3:16. That profitability is not only for those to whom the scriptures were written, but also for those who were to read them in later generations. Paul saw that the profitability of the Holy scriptures not only made Timothy wise unto salvation, 2 Tim 3:15, but also made the man of God (in his day) complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work, 2 Tim 3:17 [1].

In this text (2 Tim 3:16, 17) Paul provides examples of applying scripture in two ways: (1) specifically, drawing certain conclusions about a situation that occurred centuries before and deducing from them rules to be applied to a situation in his own day, (2) generally, stipulating that all of scripture was profitable for the believer in his day providing doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. Taking the apostle's lead, we may draw the principle that the scriptures are useful for believers of all ages and that we may apply them to our situation in our day. [2]

This underscores the value of the written word. The usefulness of the written word for the preservation and transmission of the New Testament apostolic and prophetic word is evident in the many references to writing as a medium for the communication of that word (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1, 2; 1 Cor 4:14, 14:37; 2 Cor 9:1; 13:2; Gal 1:20; Phil 3:1; 1 Thess 4:9, 5:1; 1 Tim 3:14, 15; 2 Pet 3:1; 1 John 1:4; 2:1, 7, 8, 12, 13; 2 John 1:12; 3 John 1:13; Jude 1:3; Rev 1:11; 3;1). This usefulness is clearly seen in Paul’s order for the exchange of letters between the churches in Colosse and Laodicea, Col 4:16. Such high regard for the New Testament written word indicates the intention to provide a corpus of documents which would serve in the same capacity for the New Testament era as did the Law, the Psalms, and Prophets for the Old Testament era (cf Luke 24:44).

[1] Paul may be referring not only to the writings of the Old Testament, but also to that collection of apostolic writings that were in circulation in his present day. Paul’s own writings had reached such high recognition in Peter’s estimation, 2 Pet 3:15, 16.

[2] One cannot object that the liberty to apply scripture from an Old Testament situation to a New Testament situation was exclusively Paul’s because of his apostleship. Paul’s apostleship did make the recipients of his letters take special heed to his words. But when Paul in his apostolic word pronounces all of scripture profitable, we should take special heed as well. There is nothing in Paul’s pronouncement that would lead us to conclude that that profitability is restricted to a single situation at a specific point in time. Because Paul saw all of scripture profitable for all saints of all ages, he was able to apply them specifically to the various situations of the churches under his care.

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God – Part 4

2010-12-11T15:25:00.000-08:00

.

The Anti-theological, Anti-hermeneutical, Anti-logical, Anti-practical Perspective on Scripture

(This is part four in a series that examines the view of Justice Boshoff who advocates that God’s word comes to us personally and directly from the Holy Spirit through prayer for wisdom and that the scriptures are a hindrance to hearing the word of God. You can read a transcript of two of his You-Tube videos: According to the Scriptures, You Won't Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier.)

The inspiration and authority of scripture is misunderstood, ignored, or outright rejected by many today, including those who would claim to be Christians. If the inspiration of the scriptures is understood in terms of the classic exposition of B. B. Warfield (The Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures ), that the words of scripture, though not devoid of the style, vocabulary, and intellectual prowess of the human author that penned them, are nonetheless the out-breathed words of God (I Tim 3:16) written under the superintending work of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:19-21) and therefore the inerrant, authoritative word of God – these words are worthy of our full attention and every effort on our part to understand their meaning through the use of sound principles of interpretation.

I suspect that Mr. Boshoff does not hold such a view of the Bible; even if he should claim otherwise, his attitude toward scripture strongly suggests he does not.

If scripture is allowed to speak for itself, there is no other conclusion that we may come to but that the inspired writings of the prophets and apostles are the words of God, and as such are inerrant and authoritative in all of faith and life. The human authorship of the words of scripture does not detract from this one iota. Neither the human limitation in understanding nor the sinful disposition of the human heart prohibited the words they wrote to be the very words of God. They were borne along by the Spirit of God whose oversight of the ideas and concepts of the mind and the translation of those thoughts into words on parchment resulted in the inscripturation of divine speech.

If the origin and nature of scripture is not understood as God-breathed and therefore absolutely authoritative and inerrant, it is of little more benefit to us than the writings of the deepest or loftiest thinkers in the history of man. The Meditations (167 AD) of Marcus Aurelius, polytheist and pagan emperor of Rome, would have as much authoritative weight as any word expressed in the Bible. But if the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are taken as the written, inspired word of God, they demand that we heed them; they are the expression of God’s will for us concerning all of faith and life. And though they were written to a generation long ago, they are still binding on us today for they have never ceased to be the word of God.

There is an anti-theological bias in today’s church. Mr. Boshoff has undoubtedly been affected by it and is nurturing it when he disparages the need to apply the scriptures to our situation today.

Theology in its broad sense is the study of all things that pertain to God – his nature and being, his purposes, commands, behavior, and everything that comes under his sphere of influence – which according to the scriptures is everything there is. Nothing can be understood apart from its relation to God. If there is no relation to God there is no existence, for all things live and move and have their being in (by means of) God (Acts17:28).

How do we know this?

The particular pieces of theological knowledge are not known innately by man. Granted, through the creation he sees that God exists, and he has some sense of his power and sovereignty (Romans 1:20). But the creation does not give the details. The details come only by a self-disclosure of God. God must willfully reveal himself to us.

Redemptive history is that history that traces God’s redemptive acts (the Exodus is an example) which go hand-in-hand with revelatory acts – acts by which he has disclosed something about his nature and purposes. The acts themselves are revelatory; they tell us something about God. But God has spoken more directly, through human speech. God, in various ways and at various times has spoken to us in the past through the prophets. In these last days, he has spoken to us through his Son (Heb 1:1, 2). Of that which has been spoken, God in his providence has preserved what he deemed necessary through writing.

The self-disclosure of God, necessary for any understanding of God, is preserved for us today in the writings of the Old and New Testaments. Without them, everything we might proffer about God would be hearsay, conjecture, or tradition, none of it having any guarantee of its veracity or intelligibility. The prophetic word, the scriptures, being God-breathed and written under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21) has guaranteed that God’s revelation is both true and understandable. Without the scriptures, there is no sure understanding of God, there is no sound theology.

Hence, our only source of knowledge of God (his nature, will, purposes, etc) is the scriptures. And because the scriptures are written in human language, it is understood through the use of known principles of interpretation (hermeneutics). Language, whether divine or human, is meaningful because it communicates information in accordance with grammatical rules and logical relationships. As human language communicating God’s self-revelation, the scriptures cohere logically – they make sense. The message of the revelation does not violate the rules of logic (rules that were discovered by man, not created by him).

The discernment of the message in human language requires a knowledge of the language and its interpretation according to sound rules of hermeneutics, the science of interpretation. God speaks intelligibly, not illogically or in jibberish such that his speech is unintelligible to human understanding. Because of inspiration, the scriptures are guaranteed to cohere logically – they are the only writings of human history that have such a guarantee.

Because of the source of the words of scripture (God-breathed), and because they are meaningful, the scriptures are the only source from which we may gain wisdom for our day-to-day lives; the scriptures must be applied to our situation for any guarantee that what we do in our situation is not sin. The scriptures, therefore, are invaluably necessary for our practical needs – how we must live and behave.

Mr. Boshoff's theology leads us away from the only sound source of wisdom and replaces it by a subjective internal insight. Yes, he claims that it is the Holy Spirit who speaks inwardly, but he bases that on a misunderstanding of certain passages of scripture. Mr. Boshoff ironically has applied the scriptures incorrectly and advances a method of Christian living that is wrong. We will examine Mr. Boshoff’s erring hermeneutics in a coming article.

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God - Part 3

2010-12-08T21:54:00.000-08:00

God’s Word is Non-Contradictory: Implications for God’s Word in Any Age.

(This is part three in a series that examines the view of Justice Boshoff who advocates that God’s word comes to us personally and directly from the Holy Spirit through prayer for wisdom and that the scriptures are a hindrance to hearing the word of God. You can read a transcript of two of his You-Tube videos: According to the Scriptures, You Won't Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier.)

Given any two events in which God has spoken, we are confident there is no contradiction between what he said in one event as opposed to what he said in the other. If there was a contradiction, either one or both statements would not be true, and we believe that God is true and in him is no lie (John 3:33; 7:28; 8:26; Rom 3:4; Rev 6:10; 15:3).

If we assume that Mr. Boshoff’s view is true, that God speaks inwardly through the Holy Spirit, then we must also assume that what God speaks today does not contradict what he has spoken in the past. This is to say that what God has spoken to Mr. Boshoff inwardly cannot contradict what God has spoken through the scriptures. If one avers that he has received the word of God today, but that word contradicts what God said long ago in the scriptures, then what was thought to be the word of God today is, in fact, not the word of God at all. It may be the result of wishful thinking, or an acceptance of an idea or principle that is very desirable, pleasant, and seemingly logical. But it is not God’s word. God does not contradict himself, for there is no contradiction in God. If there were, he would not be God. If contradiction rose within him, he would cease to be God.

If God has spoken in the past, and we can discern the meaning and implications of that word, then it is important that what is proffered as a word from God today should be examined in the light of that past word. Is this not what the Bereans did when Paul preached to them the death and resurrection of Christ?

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Acts 17:10, 11

They searched the scriptures because Paul used the scriptures to reason with them (Acts 17:2). Paul defended the gospel from the Old Testament scriptures and the Bereans examined those scriptures to see if Paul was telling the truth. Paul did not demand an implicit faith on the part of his listeners but appealed to the scriptures to verify his proclamation.

Jesus likewise pointed to the Old Testament scriptures as witness to himself and his work centuries after they were written:

You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. John 5:39, 40.

Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you --- Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" John 5:45-47.

The written word had a prominent place in the ministry of Paul and Christ. Undoubtedly, Mr. Boshoff would grant that, but he would say that the scriptures were used to lead to Christ and no more. In support of that, he could point to the post-resurrection incident on the road to Emmaus where two disciples were contemplating the recent crucifixion of Christ. They were downtrodden and full of doubt. When Jesus asked them what was wrong, they were astonished and wondered if it were possible that even a single person could not have known what had happened.

The two men must have been close to the company of disciples because they seemed to be familiar with some who had gone to see the empty tomb for themselves. The report of angels saying he was alive was apparently unconvincing for they were confused about the whereabouts of Christ’s body. They were in a quandary. How did Christ respond?

Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Luke 24:25-27

Mr. Boshoff could also point to the Acts of the Apostles where time and again. Paul reasoned from the Old Testament scriptures pointing to Christ or defending the gospel (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9).

Mr. Boshoff can point to all of these as evidence that the value of scripture is only to lead to Christ but nothing more. But these arguments do not clench Mr. Boshoff’s view; rather, they point the other direction. If we see that for Paul and Peter the scriptures were so vitally important to lead us to Christ, how is it that they would not also find in them what is necessary to grow in the ‘grace and knowledge of Christ,’ as Peter writes:

As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, 1 Peter 2:2.

We understand that the ‘milk of the word’ includes the apostolic word of Peter as well as the other apostles. But given Peter’s high esteem of scripture (2 Peter 1:19-21) it is difficult to exclude, if not give the priority to, the Old Testament scriptures as what is meant by ‘the word.’ This point is not without evidence as Peter uses an application of the scriptures to exhort to tenderheartedness, courtesy, and returning good for evil (1 Peter 3:8-12). We may say that through an insight of the scriptures Peter finds wisdom for growth.

The example of the use of scripture by Christ, Peter, and Paul underscores the truth that the scriptures are never contrary from age to age. They may be relied upon to reason and exhort because they are forever consistent.

Consistency and non-contradiction are inherent to the word of God, regardless of the form it comes in (vision, dream, oracle, law, psalm, parable, epistle, apocalyptic, etc.). A claim to have a word today from God, arising internally from the Spirit must be examined for its consistency with what has preceded.

The question then, Is Mr. Boshoff’s position in keeping with scripture, or contrary to it? Ironically, we must apply the scriptures to Mr. Boshoff in order to confirm or falsify the legitimacy of applying scripture to discern God’s will. That fact in itself exposes Mr. Boshoff’s position as irrational and contradictory.

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God - Part 2

2010-12-07T20:46:00.000-08:00

The Appeal to Scripture to Reject Scripture

(This is part two in a series that examines the view of Justice Boshoff who advocates that God’s word comes to us personally and directly from the Holy Spirit through prayer for wisdom and that the scriptures are a hindrance to hearing the word of God. You can read a transcript of two of his You-Tube videos: According to the Scriptures, You Won't Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier.)

In his short videos, Mr. Boshoff, who is arguing against the application of scripture to discern God’s will, alludes to or cites at least sixteen biblical references in making his case:

John 10:1ff Jesus is the Shepherd of his sheep.
John 10:4 Christ’s sheep hear his voice.
Matt 4:4; Deut 8:3 Man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Eph 6:17 The sword of the Spirit is the word of God
Heb 4:12 The word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword.
John 1:1; Rev 19:3 Christ is the Word of God.
Rom 7:6 We serve in the newness of the Spirit, not in the oldness of the letter.
Prov 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all our hearts and don’t lean to our own understanding.
James 1:5 If any lacks wisdom, let him ask of God.
John 15:13 When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide into all truth.
Rev 20:11 Judgment before the great white throne.
Roman 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10 We will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Matt 7:23 Jesus will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”

Precisely what Mr. Boshoff has in mind in the term ‘will of God’ is not clear, but he seems to be talking about God’s will regarding what an individual is to do in a certain circumstance. I would say he has in mind such things as whether one should take this employment opportunity as opposed to another, or whether a certain amount of money should be given to this individual or that individual, or whether I should marry this person, or whether I should have more than one child, or whether God wants me to shop today or stay home and work on my painting. Perhaps he is referring to those things in which the right decision is not obvious and that no choice is particularly good (beneficial), or for that matter, particularly bad (detrimental). The problem is that whatever one chooses there are consequences both desirable and undesirable, and one had better be sure that the choice is what God wants. In Mr. Boshoff’s view, the only way to be sure is for God to reveal his will through the inner speaking of the Holy Spirit. Only in this way can there be obedience to the words of Jesus and assurance of not falling outside of God’s will.

Mr. Boshoff does not deny that God has spoken to others through the scriptures. The problem, as he sees it, is that what was said to them cannot be applied to our situation. God has spoken to them, but for us that speech is just “words on paper.” We must hear what God himself has to say to us, and that word comes from the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth. To know the will of God we must hear from The Word (Jesus Christ) who speaks to us through the Holy Spirit in response to our prayer for wisdom.

If we reflect on this for a moment, we will see that there is a more fundamental question that Mr. Boshoff, wittingly or not, is addressing. That is the question, What is God’s instruction, or method, or means as to how I discern God’s will? or succinctly stated, What is God’s will as to how I discern God’s will? I would like to know how Mr. Boshoff came into this knowledge; how did he come to know God’s will regarding the means by which he is to know God’s will? It cannot be the scriptures because that would be contrary to his premise that to do so would be to lean on his own insight. If he says it came by way of an inner revelation from the Holy Spirit, how can I be sure he is not mistaken as to what he heard, or worse, that he is lying? What rule can I even use to judge the validity of his claim to receive new revelation from the Spirit, and if new revelation were being given today, how can I be sure his expression of such a revelation is not simply contrivance or wishful thinking on his part?

On his own premises, therefore, Mr. Boshoff must say that his instruction on how to know God’s will came to him as an inward word from God through the Holy Spirit; if he came to that conclusion any other way, he would be guilty of using his own insight.

Yet, Mr. Boshoff has no qualm about appealing to the scriptures to make his case. I find this very peculiar. On the one hand, Mr. Boshoff vehemently objects to the application of scripture to discern God’s will, and yet it is through an appeal to the scriptures that he argues his position. Through scripture, he has gained the insight that God speaks to us not through scripture, but directly, in prayer through the Holy Spirit. Is that not contradictory and self-refuting? Be that as it may, because he does appeal to scripture to make his case, he should not object if I were to assess his teaching in light of the scriptures, to see if they are in accord with what God has spoken through them.

Obviously, Mr. Boshoff does not reject scripture outright saying it is of no value at all; otherwise, he never would have listened to the gospel. But to him, that is all the scriptures are valuable for, only to lead us to Christ. That is one application of scripture to our situation that he would not object to.

Mr. Boshoff and I would both agree that scriptures must be applied to our situation to lead us to Christ. Our situation is one of death in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1) and the only remedy to our situation is the atonement of Christ. It was through a careful examination of scripture that Martin Luther and subsequent reformers regained the insight of justification by grace through faith without the accompaniment of meritorious works.

But is that all the usefulness we may find in the scriptures? Is that all that God ever intended? To think that God's intention for the scriptures centuries after they were written was to lead to Christ for salvation only and not for sanctification as well is contrary not only to what one would expect, but also to what the scriptures attest (2 Tim 3:16).

Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God - Part 1

2010-12-06T11:59:00.000-08:00

Introduction: The Fundamental Question - How Does God Speak to His People Today?

There is a popular theology which advocates that God’s word comes to us personally, he speaks to us directly and reveals his will in a new revelation. The individual prays to God for wisdom or direction, and God gives him the answer. We must not apply the scriptures to our situation in an effort to hear God’s word and gain wisdom, for we cannot hear God in the scriptures. To apply the scriptures to our situation is to lean on our own insight. Rather than hearing directly from God, we apply our own human skill and intellect in an attempt to make the scriptures speak to us. One such advocate of this view is Justice Boshoff whose many YouTube videos teach this. Two have been selected as exemplary of his position. These are titled, According to the Bible - You Won’t Make It and Breaking Through the Bible Barrier. I have transcribed these for reference. A perusal of Mr. Boshoff’s Facebook page reveals that many find his opinions a guide for their own Christian practice.

Mr. Boshoff is not the only advocate of God’s speaking directly to his people today. Mark Virkler has taught this for over twenty-five years in speaking engagements and seminars. His view is that prayer is a two-way communication between you and God, and that “God’s voice in our hearts sounds like a flow of spontaneous thoughts,” [DWG, p 29]. Dr. Virkler’s teaching has influenced thousands. He cites other notables who claim experience of the hearing of God’s voice: Oral Roberts, Douglas Wead (Hear His Voice, All the President’s Children), Larry Tomczak, John Patrick Grace (Hearing His Voice), Francis MacNutt, Ben Kinchlow (Christian Broadcasting Network), Glen Clark (The Soul’s Sincerest Desire), [DWG, pp 119-122].

Dr. Virkler has developed a method designed to facilitate the hearing of God’s voice within. His views are systematically formulated, whereas Mr. Boshoff speaks off the cuff. There is an important difference between Boshoff and Virkler: Boshoff allows little room for the scriptures to have any influence on the believer in hearing God’s voice whereas Virkler accepts that at times it is through the words of scripture that the Spirit speaks, and that it is necessary to test the ‘word’ in the light of scripture. I think also that Virkler fundamentally confuses the illumination and enlightenment of the Spirit with that peculiar revelatory phenomenon of a direct personal word from God that only a few in redemptive history have experienced, such as the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles.

Out of the Reformation came the principle of sola scriptura, that the scriptures alone are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, opposing the Roman Catholic inclusion of ecclesiastical tradition as part of that rule. The Reformation was a rediscovery of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, fostered by a study of the scriptures in their original languages. It is through the scriptures alone that one comes to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and it is through the scriptures that the saint is sanctified. This is the legacy of the Protestant Reformation, and if Mr. Boshoff’s teaching were taken to its logical conclusion, the scriptures would be viewed as having nothing to do with our sanctification for it has no application to us in our situation today.

Whether Mr. Boshoff would acknowledge it or not, we may identify three presuppositions that underlie his assertion that it is wrong to apply the scriptures to our own situation:

(1) The scriptures were applicable only for those to whom it was written.
(2) To apply scripture to our situation is to rely on our own insight, and not on God’s word.
(3) The scriptures are not completely sufficient for our situation making new revelation necessary.

The fundamental question is Does God speak to his people today, and, if so, in what manner? Does God speak directly to the heart in a recognizable voice, bringing new revelation? Or, does he speak in a more external way, through a word that came to his people in ages past, recorded in human language, preserved over the centuries by his providential care?

I am writing a series of articles entitled, Living By Every Word That Proceeds From the Mouth of God, that will examine Boshoff’s position in terms of its own logical coherency as well as its biblical validity. Though I do not expect to convince Mr. Boshoff of the error of his position, or those who follow his teaching with implicit faith, I do hope that the discussions I present will not only help the reader to see the fallacy of Mr. Boshoff’s position (and others like it) but also become more deeply committed to the scriptures as the final written word of God to his people in this age. It is through the scriptures that we hear God’s voice today; it is a clear word that comes to us in language that we can understand and is meaningful for us now in our situation.

DWG: Dialogue With God by Mark Virkler. Published by Bridge-Logos, Orlando, Florida, 1986.

The Sinless Perfection of the Saint

2010-11-09T22:14:00.000-08:00

I thought the doctrine of sinless perfection was passé until my son told me about an individual whom he communicated with via facebook, who claimed not to sin. The claimant was a professing Christian and the idea was quite simple; since she was a saint, she doesn’t sin.

A saint is one who is holy according to the strict meaning of the NT word, ho hagios, literally, the holy (one, thing, etc.). When used to refer to the believer, it is more or less a technical term, but the basic meaning is not absent; the believer is holy. This holiness is something that he pursues now (Pursue...holiness, without which no one will see the Lord, Heb 12:14) and it is the destiny to which he is called.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, Eph 1:3,4

For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness, 1 Thess 4:7

It is difficult to see how one can claim perfection in this life in the light of what the Scripture says about the matter. One verse that might be construed to teach sinless perfection is 1 John 3:6, Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

“Is it not clear?” the perfectionist would argue. “The one who knows him does not sin. The implication then, if you sin, you do not know him. If you know him, you do not sin. And, if you do not sin, it can only be so because you cannot sin.”

Such an interpretation can only come by ignoring the context of what John has written elsewhere in the letter (1:8-10, which we will look at). But even the language of the verse itself prohibits such a teaching. In the first part of the verse, John writes, Whoever abides in Him does not sin. The present tense of the verb 'to sin' has inherently the idea of sin as occurring in a continuous manner; it is a way of life; the sinner here is one who habitually sins, not one who from time to time commits sin. A better translation of the verse would be, Whoever abides in Him is not sinning.

This is even more pronounced in the latter part of the verse which may be translated, Each sinning one (or, Each sinning person) has not seen him nor has he known him. The stress again is on the continued, persistent activity of sinning. One who habitually and persistently sins, whose life-style is one of constant sinning, has not seen Christ or come to know him. Such a one does not abide in Christ (harking back to the parable of the vine and the branches, John 15 - except the branch remains vitally united to the vine it will wither and die and no longer bear fruit).

The one who is in Christ does not sin as a way of life, though this does not preclude sinning occasionally. By occasion, we mean that when the life of the believer is taken as a whole, the sin is an exception, not the rule. The Christian may sin grievously, perhaps even for an extended time (such as David’s adultery and murder in which there was no repentance for possibly a year). This occasional, non-characteristic sinning is precisely what John emphasizes in 1:8, 10.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1:8
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1:10

At first glance, one might think John is more or less repeating in verse ten what he writes in verse eight. But there is a distinct and important difference.

Verse eight uses the noun hamartian (sin) without the article, i.e., the article 'the' is absent. A general rule in Greek grammar is that when the article does accompany the noun (the word, the sky, the sin), a specific instance of the noun is in mind. If John had written, If we say that we have not the sin, he would have had a particular sin that both he and his readers were aware of. An example of how the article denotes specific sins is Hebrews 2:17.

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

But John does not use the article in verse eight. The absence of the article is called the anarthrous form of the noun, and this construction is often used to denote the character and nature of something, rather than a specific instance of it. In our text, it refers to the character or quality of sin (i.e., sinfulness) rather than specific acts or deeds of sin (e.g., lying, stealing, lusting, etc.). It should be taken to read, “If we say that we do not have a nature of sin...,” or perhaps, “If we say that we do not have sinfulness...” John is making the point that none of us as Christians can claim to be without a natural bent to sin. Sin, as part of our nature, is at work in us.

The conditional clause in verse ten uses the perfect indicative, If we say that we have not sinned (oukh hemartekamen). The perfect indicative means that the sin has taken place in the past and is a completed action. Whatever may have resulted from such sin continues in the present. John is referring to the past of those to whom he is writing, and we may take that to mean their past as a believer, not their past before they were a believer. A freer translation that catches the nuance of the tense and context would be, If we say that hitherto we have not sinned in our past Christian life, we are making Him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The perfectionist might say that since the sin referred to in verse ten is in the past, it is not descriptive of the present state of the individual, that is, he is no longer in a state of sinning. But the reference to our past sin in verse ten is on the heels of what the apostle says in verse nine, If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Those whom John exhorts to confess their sins are those who remain in Christ (3:6), whom the world does not know because it does not know Christ (3:1), who are born of God in which the seed of God remains in them (3:9), who have passed from death to life (3:14), who keep his commandment and do those things that are pleasing to God (3:22), who find the commandments of God not to be burdensome (5:3). Specifically, he is exhorting believers, saints, to confess their sins with the assurance they will be cleansed.

These three verses (1:8-10) taken together confirm the following truths: (a) believers have a nature to sin, 1:8, (b) believers not only have the inclination to sin, but in fact have sinned, (1:10), (c) believers are assured that if they confess their sins (a humble acknowledgment of them produced by a loathing of them and a desire to depart from them), God is just to forgive and cleanse them of their sins (through the blood of Christ).

How can the believer be construed to be without sin if he still has the nature to sin, has actually committed sin (in his past as a Christian), and is assured of forgiveness of sin (as a Christian) through confession? He cannot. Paul identifies the moment when our whole body, soul, and spirit are made perfect - the day when Christ comes again:

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thess 5:23.

November CSFF Blog Tour, Day 3

2010-11-02T22:01:00.000-07:00

The Skin Map, by Stephen R. Lawhead

Thanks to Thomas Nelson for kindly providing a copy of The Skin Map for review on the November, 2010 Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

What is it about speculative fiction that is so attractive? I do not mean to be presumptuous; it is a matter of taste, and there are many who unfortunately (for them, that is) are not the least enticed by it. But it has to do with the imagination, I think. We imagine things every day, but they are usually mundane things. Fantasy and science fiction, by definition, are not mundane. For the Chrisitan writer, these are naturally laden with the ability to convey biblical truths. To me, fantasy is better suited for that task because of its imagery and other-worldly characters. The Skin Map, which is science fiction, has its fascination as well.

A long, long time ago, when I was a boy, I had some recurring dreams that were so powerful they ring clear even today. There was one in which I had superman’s ability to fly, cape and all. Interesting that I did not have his strength; in fact, in my dream I wasn’t concerned at all about doing feats of strength. It was the flying. I flew over cities and mountains and lakes, zoomed down and zig-zagged through housing developments. I even entered huge bodies of water several hundred feet deep, very reminiscent of Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire (the movie) in which the Triwizard Champions were required to retrieve their friends from the lake. They all had to come up with ingenious ways to breath under water. In my dream, I could breathe under water as naturally as out, an ability I had no idea superman was capable of.

Another dream was in the 1960’s, when the space program was just getting underway. John Glenn had recently completed his three orbits. I was an astronaut in a mercury capsule, sitting atop an Atlas 109-D rocket. A panoramic array of zillions of controls and lights surrounded me, and I knew exactly what they did and how to use them. The Atlas lifted off, and I rocketed toward the heavens flipping switches, pushing buttons, and reading gauges all the while. Sadly, the dream ended or I awoke before I ever entered orbit.

Flying like superman and speeding into space like John Glen.

That is quite peculiar. I don’t care for heights, in spite of the fact I made it through the US Army’s airborne school at Fort Benning Georgia.

The ability to jump from one place and time to another surpasses the world of my boyhood dreams. But a world of ley lines and time travel has its mysteries and dangers.

Let’s assume I find a ley line and am thrust back to Wittenberg Castle on October 31, 1517, just in time to catch Martin Luther leaving after posting his Ninety-Five Theses. Through several gestures and miming efforts, which amuse him immensely, he invites me to a tavern, and over a tankard I am able to convince him of the existence of ley lines and time travel. Being the choleric fellow he is, he agrees to come with me ‘for the ride.’ We find the ley line, feel the tingle, I point to the sky (Luther mimics me) and, poof, we are gone. But there’s a problem which I have overlooked. I can go forward to my future, but what can he do. My past is his future, and according to the laws of time travel, one can only travel back in his time, not forward. I end up in the middle of the Battle of Gettysburg and Luther, well, who knows. Have I destroyed him since I made him do what was impossible for him to do? Not to mention I have probably caused the Reformation to stall before it has even started.

Let’s go further back, to the first century AD. I tumble into a meadow a few yards from the Appian Way to find a small cohort of Roman Soldiers (all of whom have a good laugh at my ungraceful arrival) and an unassuming fellow who goes by the name of Paul. Could it be? It is. It is the apostle himself, on his way to Rome, under guard. I follow along and after a little over eleven stadia, I catch the eye of the apostle who gains permission for me to accompany him. Now to make this easy, I’ll say that for some extraordinary reason my Greek from seminary, and Hebrew from language school while in the Air Force (yes, I was in two branches of the military - had to go through basic training twice) come fluently to my mind and tongue, and we are able to converse. After some time I tell Paul who I really am and where I come from. Surprisingly, he believes me. I offer to break him out of jail in Rome so that we could make the jump to another land and another time - imagine what that could do for the gospel! He declines and asks me if I have ever read his second letter to the Corinthians. I am puzzled so he begins to explain...

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows -- such a one was caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows -- how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
2 Cor 12:2-4

Sheepishly, I said I understood and bade good day. As the jumble and clatter of the soldiers and horses grew dim, I thought back on his words, and the passage from 2 Corinthians. Ley lines and time travel are child’s play and their mysteries and dangers are nothing to be feared.

I thought of John’s marvelous statement,

Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 1 John 3:2

Paul wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians,

So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 1 Cor 15:42-44

A spiritual body - an oxymoron? Perhaps, though an oxymoron is defined as a contradiction of words, implying that a ‘spiritual body’ would be self-negating; if it’s spiritual, then its not physical, and vice versa. Yet Paul is quite clear, our resurrected body will be a physical-spiritual body. This implies that physics as we know it now will be history (literally). Our bodies will be physically spiritual and spiritually physical. We’ll be able to appear and disappear at will, just as Christ did the day he challenged Thomas not to doubt and when the eyes of the two on the Emmaus Road were opened.

Our new existence would make ley lines obsolete, if they were real, of course. The most marvelous thing about our new existence is that it will be one of sinlessness. No more inner struggle with indwelling sin. No more fits of anger and jealousy, no more thoughtless words and malicious attitudes. Only the full blossoming of the fruit of the Spirit every second of every day.

I’d be the first in line (after checking if it’s okay with my family) to be superman or an astronaut or a ley jumper; but it all pales in light of what awaits us in the new heaven and earth:

But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." 1 Cor 2:9

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us...made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. Eph 2:4-7

Stephen R. Lawhead's Web Page
List of CSFF Blog Tour Participants
The Skin Map on Amazon

November 2010 CSFF Blog Tour, Day 2: The Skin Map

2010-11-01T21:39:00.000-07:00

November 2010 CSFF Blog Tour, Day 2

The Skin Map, by Stephen R. Lawhead

Thanks to Thomas Nelson for kindly providing a copy of The Skin Map for review on the November, 2010 Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

As a writer of Christian fantasy, it is my concern to write precisely that, Christian fantasy. Christian fantasy is only ‘Christian’ if it centers on and flows out of the gospel. The gospel is the good news that the Second Person of the Trinity became man and through his death and resurrection accomplished the redemption of his people who were chosen before the foundation of the world. This redemption is a salvation of the sinner from his sin and sinfulness; it is forgiveness accompanied by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to his account on which basis God judicially declares him just; it is sanctification, a steady forward growth in holiness and separation from a sinful life-style through the work of God’s Spirit in the heart; it is glorification, the final, permanent transformation of the saint into the likeness of the glorified Christ, physically and spiritually, in which it is no longer possible to sin and in which service and love to God is without flaw. This is the gospel, and a fantasy that is proffered as Christian fantasy is not faithful to its namesake if it does not clearly convey these truths.

This does not mean that a Christian writer is bound to write his fiction or fantasy in this way in order to be a faithful and God-glorifying writer. However, whether writing for mere entertainment in which the salient truths of the gospel are absent, or whether writing to reveal those magnificent truths, the Christian must always work under the dictum that he is to glorify God in all that he does. He does this by consciously writing as an image-bearer in which he crafts a world and story that does not violate God’s holy commandments; he does not write a story that panders to and glorifies sinful philosophy and behavior; rather, just the opposite.

Is it necessary that the whole spectrum of gospel truth be included to earn the classification of Christian? I would say no for two reasons: (1) There is enough in any one of these articles of truth to occupy a single novel, perhaps even a series. Granted, it would be difficult to focus on only one truth without implying at least one or more of the others. But even if that were possible, so long as the singular truth that is present is clear and undiluted, it makes the story distinctively Christian. (2) There is so much in the collective set of these articles, it would be difficult to have them all presented exhaustively except in a series of such epic proportions, it would take the lifetime of the author to complete.

Where does The Skin Map fit? It is entertaining, to be sure. However, the gospel is absent and as such, disqualifies it as ‘Christian.’ I say this because there is no mention of the bad news that must become painfully obvious before the good news will make any sense - and that bad news is the sinfulness of man, which merits God’s wrath. This does not ignore the characterization of Lord Burleigh as very evil. Pagans and Christians alike assess Lord Burleigh’s actions as wrong because each has a non-relative standard of right and wrong in mind, though only the Christian can articulate that standard with any degree of accuracy and authority. Lord Burleigh does represent the evil in the Good-versus-Evil dilemma of human experience, a dilemma which cannot help but enter in and become a regulative factor of any fiction. But Lord Burleigh’s behavior is not explained as the inevitable result of a man who, like all of us, is dead in trespasses and sins, has a heart in rebellion against God, and would destroy God if he could.

The character of Lord Burleigh does have its value. It reminds the reader that there is evil and that it is a problem. On the other hand, it runs the danger of the reader superficially observing, “That fiend, how could he be so despicable!” The truth is, and only the Christian knows this, we all could be so despicable, and merely characterizing that evil does not articulate the truth that “there is none good, no, not one.” Hence, for such reasons as this, The Skin Map is not Christian fiction.

I want to be fair, however. The Skin Map is book one in the Bright Empires series. The series as a whole may prove to be very Christian even though one or more of the books in the series would not be classified as such.

The Skin Map does have its characters who make statements that have profound theological implications. The reader encounters this first when Kit and his great grandfather Cosimo come into the lecture hall where Lord Henry is in the final stages of an address. The lecture reveals much about the storyline itself, and it contains a pronouncement that makes us wonder what the theological foundations of Lord Henry are. I am going to quote at some length to provide ample context (and mood which though less important is written so well, I don’t want to leave it out; it may even encourage you to buy the book):

    Kit glanced up to see that they had come to stand before a large and imposing grey stone building with a wide flight of steps leading up to a set of brassbound doors; two oily black torches fluttered on either side of the entrance. They ascended the stone steps and entered a grand vestibule with a sweeping, carved oak staircase leading to a balustraded balcony. Doors opened off the vestibule in three directions; Cosimo chose the one in the centre and, laying a finger to his lips as a caution for Kit to keep silent, quietly opened the door and slipped in.
    Kit followed and found himself at the back of a handsome and very old-fashioned lecture theatre filled row upon row with bewhiskered men formally attired in sober black gowns and plain white neck bands. The room was lit by the lambent glow of innumerable candles in sconces and massive brass chandeliers suspended from the ceiling. By Kit’s rough estimate there must have been upwards of two hundred men in the audience, and their attention was wholly directed to the platform at the front, where a very tall, lean man in a long black gown and black silk skullcap was speaking. Below a trim, spade-shaped red beard erupted a veritable fountain of intricate lace. The great silver buckles on his high-topped black shoes glimmered in the light from the row of candles along the front of the stage; his pristine white stockings were perfectly tight and straight, and he was holding forth in a dramatic, stentorian voice.
    “What language is he speaking?” whispered Kit after listening a few moments and failing to make heads or tails of what the energetic fellow was saying. “German?”
    “English,” hissed Cosimo. “Just let it wash over you.” He raised his finger to his lips once more and slipped into an empty chair, pulling Kit down beside him. The room was warm and hazy with the fug of candle smoke and body heat.
    Kit listened to the flow of the speech and, with a considerable amount of concentration, began to pick out, first, individual words, then separate phrases. A little more effort and he was able to piece together whole sentences. The fellow seemed to be banging on about some sort of new theory of energy, or something - but in the most convoluted and stilted manner possible.
    “You will appreciate, my lords and gentlemen all, that there remain many unanswered queries in the diverse, but nevertheless intimately related, fields of natural mechanics and animal magnetism. The subtle energies of our earthly home are even now beginning to surrender secrets long held and jealously guarded. We in our present generation stand on the cusp of a new and glorious dawn when mastery of these energies lies fully within our grasp as secret yields to inquiry, which yields to experimentation, which leads to verification and duplication, which, in the final course, leads to knowledge.”
    He paused to allow a polite smattering of applause to ripple through the auditorium.
    “In conclusion, I beg the indulgence of this body in allowing me to reiterate the central premise of my lecture this evening, to wit: that an expedition shall be made to undertake the experiment outlined in your hearing this evening. The experiment will commence as soon as an expeditionary force numbering not fewer than five, nor more than eight, Royal Members in good standing has been selected and proper arrangements can be made for travel, lodging, and matters attending. Therefore, it is with the greatest anticipation that I look forward to addressing this august assembly once again in the near future to divulge the results of the aforementioned experiment.”
    There were shouts of “Hear! Hear!”
    The lecturer took a few steps toward the other side of the stage and resumed. “My friends, esteemed colleagues, noble patrons, and honored guests, I leave you with this: when next you turn your eyes to the vast reaches of heaven, gentlemen, you would be well advised to remember that not only is it far more magnificent than the human mind can fathom, it is far more subtle. All the universe is permeated, upheld, knit together, conjoined, encompassed, and contained by the Elemental Ether, which we recognise as an all-pervading, responsive intelligent field of energy, eternal and inexhaustible, which is nothing less than the ground of our being, and the wellspring of our existence - that which in ages past and present men have been pleased to call God.” (pp. 53-56)

Is Sir Henry a panentheist? Is he a believer in the Force? Whatever he is, this statement does not place him in the category of a biblical theist. I do not know what Lawhead has in mind here; what kind of God is the One in whom his characters live, and move, and have their being? Is this a tenet that is foundational to all that will take place in the Bright Empires series? If so, though it is entertaining, it is based on a non-biblical theism.

The question then is, can a Christian write this way in good conscience? What are the factors that would make a story ethically wrong to publish and propagate?

I think so long as a story’s purpose is not to promote a non-Christian epistemological and ontological philosophy, though it may be heavily laced with such philosophy, it is not wrong. Though a fiction or fantasy takes place in a world that is non-biblical, that does not mean that it is by definition wrong. So long as it is clear that the intent of the story is not to promote such a world-view, it is not a dishonor to God. Such tales whose sole purpose is to entertain likewise reflect the creativity of man as image-bearer of God, and the entertainment itself may be viewed as a gift from God for his people to enjoy.

That’s how I take The Skin Map, a gift for our enjoyment produced through the exceptional imagination, creativity, and excellent writing of Stephen R. Lawhead.

Stephen R. Lawhead's Web Page
List of CSFF Blog Tour Participants
The Skin Map on Amazon

November CSFF Blog Tour, Day 1: The Skin Map

2010-10-31T22:55:00.000-07:00

The Skin Map, by Stephen R. Lawhead

Day 1 of the November 2010 CSFF Blog Tour
Thanks to Thomas Nelson for kindly providing a copy of The Skin Map for review on the November, 2010 Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

On the first read, The Skin Map comes across as a puzzlingly convoluted tale. But further reflection and perusal of the book alleviates such a notion. A better description would be that it is disjointed. I do not mean that in a bad way at all. Given the nature of the underlying premise of the story, the existence of so-called ley lines and their ability to whisk one away to another time and place (always in the past as the future has not occurred yet), the seemingly disconnected parts are natural. Of course, they are not truly disconnected; it is only that their inter-relatedness is developed slowly, which adds to the intrigue.

The story has two key protagonists, Kit (Cosimo) Livingston and his girlfriend, Wilhelmina Klug. Kit’s life is aptly summed in the words of his great-grandfather,

“...my dear boy, you are a lonely twenty-seven-year-old bachelor with a worthless education, a boring no-hope job, a stalled love-life, and very few prospects for the improvement of your sad lot.” p. 11.

The fact that those words were spoken directly to Kit by a relative who should be at least 125 years old alerts one to the extraordinary possibilities in this world of ley lines and time travel.

Wilhelmina, as portrayed by Lawhead, is a drab, monotonous, and colorless character who is a baker (key to her role in the story) at Giovanni’s Rustic Italian Bakery, requiring a 4:00 AM start every weekday leaving her exhausted by six in the evening and sound asleep by eight:

“As Kit watched her slouch back to her big blue sofa, which was her habitual nest, he was once more impressed with the idea that he simply had to get a better girlfriend at first opportunity. Dressed in black slacks and a black turtleneck with the horrible, ratty, hand-knitted purple scarf she wore everywhere, with her feet stuffed into flat-heeled, sheepskin boots, she was a dead ringer for the undertaker’s anemic daughter. Why, he wondered, did she have to look so austere? Whatever happened to sugar and spice? When enumerating the qualities he desired in a mate, vim and vigour, a zest for life, and a keenness of mind and intellect came quite near the top of the list. Wilhelmina’s idea of excitement was an extra scoop of sultanas in the cinnamon buns. Her intellect might have been keen enough- if anyone could ever catch her awake long enough to stimulate her into meaningful conversation.” p. 29

Such are the leading characters, not an unusual scenario for any story, but a particularly familiar situation for speculative fiction. For reasons that involved ley travel and a meeting with his great grandfather in another time and place, Kit is late for a promised day of shopping with Mina (diminutive of Wilhelmina), and in order to appease the unbelieving Wilhelmina’s cynicism, he convinces her to go with him and see what happened for herself. In the doing of that, the two are catapulted into a different time and place, but not together.

Wilhelmina lands in medieval Germanic territories (her German is poor but she manages) and makes her way into Prague accompanied by a likeable character named Englebert. The time period is during the reign of Emperor Rudolf. I’m assuming this is Rudolf II who reigned from 1576-1612. According to Wikipedia, Rudolf II lived in Prague Castle, was eccentric, depressed, and held bizarre courts of astrologers, magicians, and other strange figures. The Rudolf of The Skin Map is much like this, and among those strange figures are alchemists who are pertinent to the story.

Meanwhile, Kit lands somewhere, meets up again with his great grandfather (also named Cosimo); the two are almost overpowered by ‘Burly men’ (henchmen of Lord Burleigh, the arch villain of the story), and finally escape via another ley jump to the London of 1666.

The quest is a search for the ‘skin map’ whose acquisition, both for Lord Burleigh (a particularly distinguished fiend) and Kit (along with Cosimo and another, Lord Henry Fayth), is eminently vital. The skin map is a collection of hieroglyphs that have been tattooed, in piecemeal fashion, onto the chest and abdomen of an important character who uses them as a guide to safe and accurate time travel; their indelibility in his skin ensures the map never departs from him (although at one point it almost does by flaying at the hands of the despicable Lord Burleigh).

The quest for the skin map is certainly a prelude to something big and marvelous, which the story hints of involving a place called the Well of Souls. The accuracy of that assessment will be revealed in subsequent volumes of The Bright Empires Series; the next is due to arrive in September 2011, The Bone House.

I enjoyed the story. Lawhead is a good writer, crafting his sentences and paragraphs well, and masterful in his depiction of the life and times of medieval people. The story is intriguing, albeit not easy to follow (I attribute some of that to the abbreviated time in which the book had to be read). The characters are many, distinctive, and attractive, another indication of Lawhead’s excellent writing prowess.

There is little of the writing, if anything, to be negative; but if something negative were to be said, it might be the dialogue which, for me at times, came across as a bit too artificial. The effort to have those of another era speak in a manner fitting to that time does not always have a genuine mood and sometimes feels overdramatic. But the story is good, the writing great, the characters interesting, and this little issue of dialogue is only a speck of a problem.

Stephen R. Lawhead's Web Page
List of CSFF Blog Tour Participants
The Skin Map on Amazon

The Gospel and "I Will" Messages

2010-09-19T21:14:00.000-07:00

The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, died on the cross and made an atonement that completely satisfies the justice of God for sinners who repent and believe in Christ to save them from their sins through that atonement. The ramifications of the gospel are many and whole systematic theologies have been written which explore and expound those ramifications.

The central thought in salvation is that it is salvation from sin. This does not mean merely that we are forgiven of our sins, though that is true. More fundamentally, it means we are saved from our sins and sinfulness. We are sinners at heart, which is to say we are born sinners so that as we grow from infancy to childhood to adulthood we sin continually. Our natural inclination is not to seek God and obey him. It is the opposite - to rebel against him and despise his holy commandments. (Romans 3:10-18; Psalms 14 & 53)

An aspect of our sinful state is that not only do we not do good, but we are utterly unable to do good. Much is said (pro and con) about the total depravity of man, but little about the total inability.

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:7, 8.

It is not a lack of proper motivation, good counsel, intellectual insight, or sheer will that the sinner does not do good. It is because he is incapable of doing good. He has no motivation, insight or will to do good. All such counsel to do what is good is foolishness and looked upon as strange (1 Peter 4:4).

Granted, even the worst of sinners do things that are outwardly commendable (Hitler had a heart for children), and that is because the law of God is written on the heart convicting and excusing men (Romans 2:14, 15). But the unbelieving sinner’s doing the commendable thing does not come out of an attitude like David’s:

“Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You,”
“Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight,”
“I said, 'LORD, be merciful to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.'" (Psalms 119:11; 51:4; 41:4 respectively).

David kept God’s law because he loved God and his commandments (Psalm 119:97; see also I John 5:3), and he grieved when he disobeyed them. The unbelieving sinner does the “right thing” out of an innate (God-given) sense of right and wrong, which he agrees with, but not out of a love for God and his holy will.

The gospel, the good news of salvation from our sins and sinfulness, should be at the core of all preaching, not only to the unbeliever, but also to the believer. The repentant sinner begins in humility by renouncing anything he can do or offer God, and turning to Christ by faith for everything he needs: forgiveness, justification, sanctification. The mature believer must do the same. He has no power in and of himself by which he follows and serves Christ. He had no innate ability to do that when he first came to Christ for salvation, and he has none after. Constantly aware of his tendency toward sin, the believer must always look to the cross and Christ for grace to persevere and overcome his sin.

Recently I listened, with my son, to some messages delivered by a local youth pastor to a group of young people in his congregation. The series of messages were advertised as the “I Will” messages. The overwhelming emphasis was that the hearer must choose to follow and serve Christ. An occasional reference to repentance, the sin nature, and sin itself was made, but it was mentioned in passing, as though it were of secondary importance. Now, I hope that the mention of these in such a peripheral way does not mean that the youth pastor thinks of them as secondary. I doubt very much that he thinks that way. But the point is that regardless of his personal estimation of those things, or even more broadly, the official doctrinal position of the local church he serves in, the 'I Will' messages do not lay a proper emphasis on our sin and sinfulness.

The youth were constantly pressed to make a choice to follow Christ because God gave (offered) them that choice. In fact, they were told that they should be glad that God gave them that choice, the implication being (I suspect) that God does not make us choose one way or the other; he has given us the free will to choose and will not force his will upon us. We are not automatons.

If the messages were based on a free will theology (the choice to believe or serve is completely in the hands of the sinner and saint), I can see why the references to sin, sinfulness, and repentance were on the periphery. If the choice is ultimately contingent on our innate ability to choose, then why not emphasize it? If in spite of our sinful hearts we have the power to choose to follow and serve, then that is what our message must focus on.

But that is not the gospel way. The gospel way is to point sinner and saint alike to Christ in his death and resurrection. Christ suffered the penalty of sin and rose in power over it. The condemned sinner is led to Christ and the cross to be saved and turned from his sins. The believer is led to Christ to acknowledge humbly that without the work of God in his heart (won by the victory of Christ over sin through the cross and resurrection), there is no serving, no choosing.

"We are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them," Ephesians 2:10.

By sanctification, purchased for us through the cross, and imparted to us by the risen Saviour through his Spirit, do we humbly obey the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a mustering of our natural ability to chose to serve. We have no such ability. We are sinners at heart and must always look to the grace of God in Christ and his cross to overcome our rebellious will.

This was the way of Paul who predicated the imperative on the indicative. When he urged, beseeched, or commanded obedience, he did so always looking back to the finished work of the cross and resurrection as our deliverance from our sin.

Paul exhorts the Romans to yield their bodily members as instruments of righteousness [imperative] (Romans 6:12, 13) because they are in union with Christ who was raised in newness of life; as sin no longer had dominion over Christ, neither did it any longer have dominion over them, they are no longer slaves to it, they have been freed from the power of sin through their union with Christ in his death and resurrection [indicative] (Romans 6:2-11, 14):

He urged the Philippians to work out their salvation [imperative] because it was God who was at work in them both to will and do his good pleasure [indicative]. This work of God in them was predicated on God's exaltation of the Saviour by resurrection, ascension, and session at his right hand with the ultimate effect of his universal lordship acknowledged by all (every knee shall bow), (Philippians 2:9-13).

He beseeched the Ephesians to walk worthy of their calling [imperative] (Ephesians 4:1) because God’s Spirit strengthens his people in the inner man, and God is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think because of the power (i.e., the power of his Spirit) that works in us, the same power he worked when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand [indicative] (Ephesians1:19, 20; 3:20).

Left to ourselves, we Christians would go astray and leave our God. Unless he works in us by his Spirit to be strengthened to resist and overcome the sinfulness of our hearts, we would leave him. For that reason, we must always look to Christ and his work (death and resurrection) to defeat our sin - its penalty, power, and someday its presence.

To the degree that a message or sermon ignores our sinfulness (even as Christians) and the need to rely upon the Spirit of God for the power to follow Christ, to that degree the message is based on a false gospel. The false gospel is this, that spiritual blessing and the ability to serve Christ comes through the power of our choice and not the power of the cross of Christ and his Spirit. To press upon one to choose to follow Christ on the basis that he has the innate ability to choose and serve Christ, is pressing that one to perform a self-generated work whose goal is to obtain a sanctification that can only be produced by a God-generated work, through the Spirit, who strengthens us to keep us from going astray.

Our message to our youth and adults should not be to declare brazenly, 'I will chose to serve,' but to humble ourselves like David who sang:

Direct my steps by your word! Do not let any sin dominate me!
(Psalm 119:133)

Create for me a pure heart, O God! Renew a resolute spirit within me!
Do not reject me! Do not take your Holy Spirit away from me!
Let me again experience the joy of your deliverance! Sustain me by giving me the desire to obey!
Then I will teach rebels your merciful ways, and sinners will turn to you.
(Psalm 51:10-13)

Thomas Talbott's Universalist View of the Meaning of Christ Victorious

2010-09-14T17:14:00.000-07:00

Thomas Talbott, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Willamette University (Salem, Oregon), is a ‘Christian Universalist’ who writes:

“Universalists believe that the same God who commands us to love our enemies loves his own enemies as well. But God does not love sin or death or anything that separates us from him, and Paul also referred to these enemies [1 Cor 15:25-28]. So here we must distinguish carefully between the sense in which such personified evils as Sin and Death and various cosmic forces are enemies and the sense in which real people under the power of such evils are enemies. Christ destroys enemies of the first kind (non-persons) by obliterating them, that is, by eliminating them from creation entirely. When he does destroy sin and death and various cosmic forces, he likewise destroys enemies of the second kind (sinful persons) in the only way possible short of annihilating them: by redeeming them while they are yet enemies. For only enemies of the second kind (persons) are possible objects of God’s redemptive love.” (page 27, Christ Victorious, an essay in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, edited by Robin A. Parry and Christian H. Partridge, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).

A ‘Christian Universalist’ believes that salvation is through faith in Christ as does the evangelical; but the universalist contends that all men without exception will believe, either in this life, or postmortem, after a time of suffering in hell where they will eventually come to repentance and faith. In this way, according to Talbott, Christ is truly victorious, for there will no longer be anyone who remains a sinner in hell.

The assumption is that if a sinner remains forever in his sin (in hell), then that sinner, an enemy of God, remains undestroyed. But Talbott insists this cannot be, for Paul declares that Christ will put all enemies under his feet, and that the last enemy to be destroyed is death (1 Cor 15:25, 26). Therefore the sinner, who is an enemy of God, must either be annihilated or redeemed. Either the individual is destroyed (annihilation) or the dispostion of the individual is destroyed (transformtion from sinner to saint – redemption).

This position is untenable for the following reasons:

(1) God’s final victory over all his enemies does not require or even imply that all sinners will repent.

1 Cor 15:24, 25 defines the victory of God as the putting to an end of all authority and power by placing it under Christ’s feet. What is the nature of the authority and power that is conquered by Christ? The references to enemies and enemy (‘For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet’ and ‘the last enemy that will be destroyed is death’) in the immediate context can leave no question that the authority and power in mind is characterized by rebellious opposition. Christ will reign until all such rebellion is subjugated. A change of heart on the part of the enemy is not requisite for final and absolute victory (authority) over that enemy. Victory is the confinement of the enemy and the dismantling of his sphere of operation so that he no longer is free or able to rebel. Indeed, the punishment of the enemy for his rebellion during his confinement is not out of order.

A universalist might object that the rebellion continues in the heart, even during the confinement and punishment. Unless the rebellion is eradicated from the heart, namely, unless the sinner in hell repents and believes and thereby transforms, the rebellion continues. Christ is not victorious, there is still an enemy to be defeated.

But this notion is not supported by the scriptures. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, when speaking of the Second Advent, assures us that Christ will take vengeance upon his and our enemies, punishing them and banishing them from his presence, an extreme form of confinement:

...since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe...

The word ‘everlasting’ (aionion) may be literally translated age-like, and there is much ado over this word among universalists. No wonder. If it is translated eternal, everlasting, unending, their doctrine of universalism is doomed forever.

Some universalists would translate the word age-long as

"Any space of time whether longer or shorter, past, present or future, to be determined by the persons or things spoken of, and the scope of the subjects; the life or age of man. Aiónios, a definite and long period of time, that is, a long enduring, but still definite period of time," cited by Rev. John Wesley Hanson in his study of the words aion and aionios in 1875.

But let us assume that aionion has retained a fundamental meaning of age-like or age-long in the New Testament and the inherent meaning is of a duration whose extent is determined by the person or things spoken of. This does not at all favor the universalist. The Second Advent is the pivotal event that separates this age and the age to come. From the perspective of Christ’s second coming everything that precedes is the present evil age, and everything that follows is the age to come. From the vantage point of the Second Advent and its teleological significance, when one looks forward into the age to come, he sees only an age that is endless. Indeed, the experiences of that age will be manifold, but one thing is certain - those experiences will coincide with the endlessness of the age itself. Unless the universalist is willing to place a limit on the duration of that post-Advent age to come, how can he deny that age-like life and age-like destruction, whose nature is contoured by the never-ending duration of that Age par excellence, can be anything less than everlasting.

Granted, there are places in the New Testament where the future is referred to in terms of ages (plural), and one might be tempted to construe that, even in the age to come, there is a division of ages.

For example:

But God who is rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places, that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his kindness toward us who believe, Eph 2:4-7 (but Paul, in the same letter, refers to the exaltation of Christ and his authority over all as not only taking place in this age, but also, in the age to come (singular), Eph 1:20, 21)

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever (lit. unto the ages), Heb 13:8.

For me, it is appropriate to think that the intended use of the plural in such texts is for emphasis or intensity. Regardless, from the perspective of the central event of Christ’s Second Coming, there is the making of two ages, and only two, by the consumation of the present evil age (which is how we may understand our text with regard to the words, ‘then the end’), and the commencement of the age to come. Again, the attributes of age-like life and age-like destruction must be defined in terms of the everlasting, endless character of that coming age (thus, Matt 25:41, 46).

(2) Talbott's interpretation of three stages in the resurrection is eisegesis rather than exegesis (i.e, reading into rather than taking out the meaning).

Talbott assumes that the destruction of the last enemy, death, necessarily requires that the death of the sinner in hell must be brought to an end by one of two ways, annihilation or resurrection. In support of this, Talbott contends that resurrection comes in three stages: Christ the firstfruits, those who are Christ’s at his coming, those who repent and believe afterward (in hell). In terms of our 1 Cor 15 text, this third stage is elicited from the words ‘then (comes) the end...’

15:22-24 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end...

Talbott prefers to translate the words ‘then the end’ as ‘then the remainder’ (ibid., page 26), which, if that were a viable interpretation, would seemingly refer to those who are not resurrected at the time of Christ’s second coming, but later, after a long time in hell. However, Talbott is willing not to press that point seeing that few commentators would agree with the translation.

Whether he presses such a translation or not, Talbott insists that in 1 Cor 15:22-24, there is the image of a procession taking place in three stages.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits [stage 1], afterward those who are Christ's at His coming [stage 2]. Then comes the end [stage 3], when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

But we object, for the imagery does not bear that out at all. The imagery is Old Testament wherein there are two stages– the early harvesting of the firstfruits (Feast of Harvest), then the later ingathering at the end of the year (Feast of Ingathering):

Exodus 23:14-16 Three times you shall keep a feast to Me in the year: You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread...and the Feast of Harvest, the firstfruits of your labors which you have sown in the field; and the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you have gathered in the fruit of your labors from the field.

Interestingly, in 2 Thess 2:1, coincidental with the Second Advent, Paul writes of our gathering together to him (hemon episunagoges ep auton). The picture is of gathering in such a way as to bring the objects so close they may be thought of as 'upon' or 'crowding' the one who gathers.

The Greek in 1 Cor 15:23, 24 does indeed, specify a three part order using the words epeita...eita (translated afterward...then, as in Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end...) The epeita...eita construction is used for enumeration and loosely means first this; after that, this; then this. So Paul does have in mind three events that follow in a certain order: Christ’s resurrection; after that, the resurrection of those at his coming; then the end.

The question is, are all three events referring to the same theme – resurrection. The first two clearly do. Resurrection is the making alive of men, and the subjects involved in the first two events are identifiable human beings, Christ on the one hand, and those at his coming on the other. But the third event, the End, does not contain the notion of making alive. Rather, the event of the End is the point in time when Christ delivers the kingdom to the Father, when he puts an end to (rebellious) rule, authority, and power. It is an event of deliverance on the one hand, and of destroying and subjugating on the other. The resurrection of persons, so cleary delineated in the first two events, is missing in the third event, for the resurrection harvest is over. With the final ingathering at the Second Advent, the End has come. It is the closing of the present evil age when those resurrected in glory (see 15:43) are delivered to the Father, and those who are not Christ’s (and therefore not raised in glory) are destroyed, bringing their rebellious rule to an end. The timing of that third event is confirmed by other texts (such as the 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 passage cited above) to be coterminous with the Second Advent.

In this 1 Cor 15 text, there is no tension in Paul’s thought of a truly total victory by Christ over all his enemies which does not at the same time require their ultimate salvation. It is the victory of the conquering King who rescues his people from his and their enemies whom he destroys by banishing them from his presence and glory (2 Thess 1:9).

Talbott cannot even raise the objection: If the last enemy to be destroyed is death, how can there be an eternal banishment from God, the essence of death itself? If hell were to continue forever, has not God failed to destroy death? But that is not what the apostle has in mind when he speaks of death as the last enemy to be destroyed. When Paul elucidates in the latter verses of 1 Cor 15 the nature of the resurrection (wherein he answers the question What kind of body is a resurrected body? 15:35), he is thinking of the resurrection referred to in the second event (‘afterward those who are Christ's at His coming’). There is nothing in the passage that would indicate that Paul has any other resurrection in mind. And as such, the destruction of the final enemy of death is precisely the resurrection of the saints at the Second Advent, for Paul writes (15:54, 55),

So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written:

"Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?"

One final note. Talbott and universalists like him rely heavily on the translation of ‘all’ in 1 Cor 15:22 and Rom 5:18 (these texts appear to be the loci classici of their position) to mean ‘all without exception,’ such that as on the one hand all without exception have died in Adam, so on the other, all without exception will be made alive in Christ. They insist that the grammatical parallelism leads to no other conclusion. But if our understanding of the 1 Cor 15 text is correct, that those who participate in the resurrection harvest are only those at Christ’s coming, then Paul, without explanation or apology has used the word ‘all’ differently in a parallel grammatical construction. The point is that such parallelism does not always demand an identity of scope on both sides. Context determines the scope. In some cases the context may extend beyond the immediate text and into the theology of the writer as propounded elsewhere in the New Testament.

TCB

The Transformation Is Inevitable

2010-09-13T17:30:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 5:1-8

1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children.
2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;
4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.
8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light...

Paul exhorts his Ephesian readers to imitate God. The exhortation may strike one as preposterous; after all how can we, sinners by nature, finite in every aspect of our being, imitate the infinitely Holy One? But Paul is not alone in making such a demand. Peter, in a similar vein, charges his readers, "as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy," 1 Peter 1:15, 16. In both Paul and Peter, the exhortation is accompanied by the image of children. Paul elicits the picture of a dear child imitating his Father; Peter speaks of 'obedient children.' Children of God love their Father and as such want to be like Him. They want to please Him. For one who is a child, loved by his Father, and devoted to his Father, nothing is more satisfying than to be like the Father.

Both Paul and Peter are specific as to what it means to be an imitator of God, to be holy just as He is holy. For Peter, it is not to conform to one's former lusts. Peter is simply saying, "don't behave the way you used to, before you became children of God."

Paul lays it out in starkly contrasting and explicit examples: Fornication, filthiness, covetousness, foolish talking, coarse jesting on the one hand, and the fruit of the Spirit on the other. This contrast was introduced by Paul in the fourth chapter. There, after having explained in Chapter 2 how the Ephesian believer - once dead in tresspasses and sins in which he walked according to the course of this world, in whose nature there was no difference from that of the son of disobedience - a dead sinner was made alive in Christ. Something radical happened, a transition from death to life, and Paul unabashedly expected there to be a difference in such a one who was made alive. The liar is now to speak the truth. The thief is no longer to steal but labor that he might have something to give to him who has need. Anger is to be short-lived and no longer an occasion for sin or an opportunity for the devil to work his evil purposes. The mouth is guarded such that nothing corrupt proceeds from it, but rather that which is good and helpful to the listener. All bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, evil speaking, and malice is to be cast off. Instead, the way of the one who has been made alive is marked by kindness, tenderheartedness, and forgiveness.

God does a work in the believer that changes him, from sinner to saint, death to life. This is radical, so radical that one in whom God has done the work cannot help but behave in a particular manner - in godliness and holiness. This does not mean sinless perfection or anything that comes close to it. Rather than a life of ease, there is a profound struggle that permeates everything. Paul bears witness to the war that goes on in the heart and life of the believer (Gal 5:17; Eph 6:10-18; I Cor 9:24-27, II Cor 3:16-18). But there is an inevitable difference between what came before and what follows.

This struggle to be holy is itself a part of the difference. For the unbeliever, still dead in his sins, whose understanding is darkened, alienated from the life of God because of ignorance and blindness, who is so far gone that he is past feeling and gives himself over to lewdness to work all uncleanness with greediness (Eph 4:18, 19) - such a one knows of no struggle to be holy.

Holiness, its pursuit, the struggle for it, is not optional, but mandatory. In some sense, it comes easy because it is inevitable - the one who has been made alive cannot help himself, for his deepest desire is to be holy. He fights to be holy; he grieves over his sin hourly; his life is characterized by continual repentance. His conscience is struck, his heart is pierced over his sin. The bane of his iniquities drives him continually to God for forgiveness and restoration, that he might have that grace to live on and fight another hour. He rejoices in anticipation of that day when in glory, he sins no more.

The one who claims to be a Christian but is not walking as one, has deluded himself. To him Paul says, "Let no one deceive you, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience."

Are you struggling to be holy? If so, that is a good sign. Perservere. Take heart. There is a day coming in which the struggle will be over. For now, fight.

Is there no struggle. Take heed, and examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith. We are despicable sinners, helpless to change, and yet in Christ, there is everything we need. We bring nothing to him. We cannot offer a submissive heart for we have no such thing. We need a broken, contrite heart, and only Christ can do that. In Him there is not only forgiveness, but sanctification. Christ alone changes us because he alone makes us alive.

Do you sense the wickedness of your heart and the inability to change? Come to Christ, who became for us wisdom from God - righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. There is no transformation except through Christ. He saves us from our sins and sinfulness. We offer him nothing - not our hearts, our wills, or our minds for they are altogether corrupt. We can only receive from him - his righteousness (imputed to us), his sanctification (transforming us into a godly, holy people), his redemption (the forgiveness of our sins and deliverance from his deserving wrath). Receive the grace of God in Christ and be transformed from sinner to saint. Turn to him for cleansing from your sin, a renewed heart, and a stedfast, persevering spirit in his holy ways. Take his yoke for it is easy, his burden is light, and you will discover his commandments are no longer grievous but joyous, more precious than silver, more to be sought after than gold.

TCB

Promoting Blaggard's Moon, Character and Dialogue - August 2010 Christian Fantasy and Blog Tour, Day 3

2010-08-24T23:08:00.000-07:00

Every story that has compelled me to read it again typically included a peculiar character, sometimes more than one, so well-written that I could see him and hear him. Of course, the voice and looks that came to my imagination were often those I’d seen either in real life, or in a movie, or in a child’s story book. But the reason they came was because the writing invoked them, called them forth, and they came: Gollum, Puddleglum, Tom Fitzgerald (The Great Brain), the Scarecrow (The Wizard of Oz), John Carter (The God’s of Mars), Vernon Dursley, Rubeus Hagrid, Severus Snape, and Dolores Umbridge (Harry Potter), Jack Torrance (The Shining), Mr. Li (Plague Maker)...and others.

Blaggard’s Moon has such a character whose role is catalytic, yet without him, Polivka could not have told the tale of Blaggard’s Moon as he did...literally. Hammond Drumbone, known as Ham to his shipmates, if he ever existed in real life, would probably have been one of the most likeable pirates one could ever hope to meet (assuming one would knowingly want to be an acquaintance of pirates). Yet, he plays no role in the unfolding or outcome of events. But he adds such a flavor of drama that without him the story would not have been so fresh. How so?

Ham doesn’t come into the story in a flare, but quietly. The reader is commiserating with Smith Delaney and thereby becomes acquainted with Ham. Smith Delaney is skulking about trying to find things to dwell on other than his little predicament. You see, Delaney’s sitting on a pole (eight inches across, eight feet high) in the middle of a piranha-infested lagoon, abandoned by cutthroat pirates. Ham comes to mind and Delaney is struck by the pirate’s gift for telling a tale. Sometimes Ham filled in where there needed filling in but, as Delaney recalls, no one who listened really cared what was real and what was fabricated, it all was real when it came from the lips of Ham.

    Delaney could almost hear Ham talking now, a shade of melancholy in his deep voice, calling up both lonesome longing and high hopes at the same time, painting those word pictures like only he could paint them...He’d wait until there was quiet there under the decks, quiet but for the creaking of the ship’s timbers. And then he’d begin.
    Where did it all start? he’d ask. Where do such tales ever start? It was what he’d always ask at the outset of a story. Then Ham would answer himself. Deep in the darkest part of the heart, where men don’t know what goes on even in their own selves. That’s where every story starts.
    That Ham. He could tell a tale.

The reader is already charmed by Ham wanting to hear a tale himself, see if Ham lives up to the grand story teller of Delaney’s nostalgic memories. The paragraphs that follow do not disappoint. In those paragraphs, Polivka does a remarkable thing. He treats the reader with the blending of two voices and two tales, his own and Ham’s.

    “Dark and clouded it was,” Ham began one evening below decks, “with the sky iron gray and restless, the misty sea churning beneath it, throwing off white foam as far as the eye could see.” Smoke rose from his pipe as the men lay silent, hammocks in tight rows swaying together with the movement of the ship. “A storm was brewing, aye, and a big one, too. And then a thundering came, and it echoed, and then a voice came, carried on the thunder. But the voice was not like the thunder. The voice was high and beautiful. The voice was a girl singing sweet, and lingering on every note, a pure voice from far away, from out of the rain, out of the storm, out of a dream.”
    “How old was the girl?” a young sailor asked in hoarse whisper.
    “Don’t matter her age,” Ham answered easily.
    “What’d she look like?” asked another, bolder.
    “It was just a voice, gents. A disembodied voice, as they say.”
    “Ye mean she ain’t got a body?” a third asked, somewhat shocked. “It’s a ghost, or what?”
    Ham sighed. “It’s all happening in a dream. The ship, the singing, the girl...I’m telling you about a dream that Mr. Delaney had. When he wakes up you’ll know where he is, for some of you were there. But I’m trying to build some mystery into it, so shush, and let me tell it.”
    The pirates went silent again, and Ham continued...

The mood is palpable. The crew-filled hammocks, the ship creaking, the pipe smoke rising, the beginnings of the tale. The reader stands among the hammocks watching the scene play out. But before Ham’s story gets going, he is interrupted and a dialogue (conversation that brings drama) ensues.

The dialogue is not contrived. It has a back and forth banter that is true to life. It completes the picture; hitherto, the reader sees the crew gathered about, but now he hears them. And it all centers on Ham who, without any pretense, admits that he’s trying to build mystery into his tale. The pirates apparently like that, and so does the reader.

The dialogue permits the reader to peek into the social psyche of the crew. The tales of Ham were their only means of entertainment. There are (apparently) no books, obviously no movies or television. The nearest comparison that I can think of is how families at one time (in the ‘old days’ as I thought of them as a child) sat around the radio listening to radio plays and drama. This is more striking because Ham’s introduction could have been used for radio. Do you see it?

    Where did it all start? he’d ask. Where do such tales ever start? It was what he’d always ask at the outset of a story. Then Ham would answer himself. Deep in the darkest part of the heart, where men don’t know what goes on even in their own selves. That’s where every story starts.

This is akin to the way the old radio melodrama The Shadow began, ‘who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men...only the shadow knows,’ (organ in the background). Good radio drama has a quality that is unique. Those who sat around the radio in the ‘old days’ were entertained in a way that television, movies, and books are unable to provide. These pirates are unwittingly entertained in similar manner with the likes of Ham. So is the reader.

Ham was a master of suspense:

    “...This fine young lady was boarding a ship, and at that same moment a fierce young warrior wearing the blue naval uniform of a Vast marine was disembarking from another. She glided up the gangway to the main deck of a heavy-laden merchant vessel, which was bound for the southern seaports of Warm Climes.”
    “What’s her name?” one of the men asked.
    “Tell us what she looked like!” begged another.
    "Aye, and don’t tell us there’s mystery to it!” another called out. Laughter rose. Ham was always shrouding some fact he easily could have explained, just so he could produce it later with a flourish, making his listeners feel satisfied after a long hunger.
    “Oh, she was a mystery,” he said. “She was indeed...”

Mystery, a technique that Ham used, and so does Polivka. The names of the lady and the Vast marine are not mentioned until a fitting time later, all the while making the reader wait tantalizingly for the disclosure of the mysterious persons.

The lady and the marine are key to the story of Blaggard’s Moon, and Polivka’s use of Ham introduces them unforgettably. The two going in opposite directions turn at the same moment and their eyes meet - they recognize each other; they have a past:

    “...He saw beauty, fresh and unspoiled, radiant and sharp-eyed, but with sorrow somehow bound up deep within. And what she saw was a dark-haired, scruffy warrior just in from the wildness of the seas, fresh from the fight, but with some unquenchable thirst, a drive she couldn’t name.”
    “Wait, wait, did you say a fight?” one of the men asked. “What fight?”
    “You are a hard bunch to tell a story to, and that’s a fact. If you must know, that very morning Damrick Fellows had had his first battle against a pirate. It wasn’t much, really, just a...”
    Now the cramped room exploded.
    “What did you say?”
    “Hang on now!”
    “You sayin’ it’s Damrick Fellows?”
    “This story is about Hell’s Gatemen?”
    When the room calmed, Ham puffed his pipe for a moment. Then into the tense calm, he spoke the single word, “Aye.”
    The room erupted once again, this time in glee. “Tell us the fight!”
    Ham savored the moment. “But gents, we were about to learn of the fair Jenta Stillmithers, and her travels, and how she was first introduced to the world of pirates and scalawags.”
    “Jenta?” and “Wait, ye mean the pirate’s woman?” and “We want to hear Jenta!”
    “No!” and “Hang on, tell the fight!” others countered.
    And then the forecastle was in an uproar, men shouting at one another from their hammocks, until a few rolled out and stood, the better to argue their points, particularly should their own position on the matter require proofs of a somewhat more forceful nature.
    “All right, shush now! Shush or you’ll hear neither!” Ham bellowed. The room quieted some. “You’ll get the Whale down here thinking there’s fisticuffs broke out amongst us, and we’ll all be feeling Mr. Garvey’s lash. Just furl some sail, boys, and ease up a bit.”
    The men grumbled but settled quickly, then waited impatiently.
    Ham cleared his throat. “Aye, the tale is of Damrick Fellows, and Jenta Stillmithers, and Conch Imbry and his gold. And you shall hear it all.”

And so shall the reader hear it all, thanks to the pen of George Bryan Polivka.

Promoting Blaggard's Moon: A Novel's Opening - August 2010 Christian Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour, Day 2

2010-08-23T22:12:00.000-07:00

With fiction and the great majority of nonfiction, the opening is the most important segment of the work, not because it may contain extraordinary literary deployment (though that could be the case, of course), but because if we lose on readers here, we’ll never get them back. In tennis we get a second serve; in most types of writing we don’t. We get only one chance to intrigue our readers, and we’d better make it work! – William Noble, Conflict, Action & Suspense, p 35.

The opening of the novel must accomplish at least two things:

(a) Capture the interest of the reader.

(b) Contain the seed of which the novel is the germinating flower.

If this is not done by page two, or at most by page three, the reader will be too ready to put the book down. Even if he survives an opening that fails on either of these two points, he will have a more critical eye trained on all that follows. It will take more to put the reader into a positive frame of mind toward the story. Mistakes that may come later (a historical inaccuracy, an unrealistic moment, a dull description, an unimportant detail, a subtle grammatical error, etc.), however small, will not be easily forgiven.

One of the ways to ‘capture the interest’ is to open with conflict and/or intrigue. Conflict is intriguing, but I’ll not grant that intrigue is conflict. Conflict is a clash between a character and another character, a character and his circumstances, or even a character and himself. Intrigue has more to do with the unusual and unexpected both of which may or may not be the result of conflict. To encounter a bee gathering pollen may be intriguing, but hardly a conflict (unless you consider the bee as struggling for survival in his pollen-gathering, which to some degree is true).

An opening scene which is rich with intrigue, and equally rich with conflict, is very astute. Blaggard’s Moon opens precisely in this way. The first paragraph, a single line, is so pregnant with intrigue that the reader does a mental double-take.

“On a post. In a pond.”

The reader stops, if only for a moment, to try and let the meaning of that sink in. Does it mean what it really sounds like it means, something (or more unexpectedly, someone) is stuck on a post out in the middle of a body of water? What is it/he doing there? How did it/he get there?

The reader wants and expects the author to reveal what this is about, and if the gratification of that ‘want’ isn’t met in short order, the intrigue will turn to frustration. But Polivka does not let that happen. The next paragraph tells just enough to begin to satisfy the need to know:

Delaney said the words aloud, not because anyone could hear him but because the words needed saying. He wished his small declaration could create a bit of sympathy from a crewmate, or a native, or even one of the cutthroats who had left him here. But he was alone.

Conflict is a sure source of intrigue. Two of the three types of conflict identified above are present here: between character and his environment (the individual stuck on a pole in a body of water), and between character and other characters (the pole-sitter and the cutthroats who put him there).

The abandonment on the pole is conflict, and it is so unusual that the intrigue is immediately palpable. The intrigue comes in the form of dread, and Polivka increases the dread by revealing the unthinkable scope of the conflict in the next three paragraphs. But the paragraph immediately following is a teaser:

It wasn’t the post to which he’d been abandoned that troubled him, though it was troubling enough. The post was worn and unsteady, about eight inches across at the top where his behind was perched, and it jutted eight feet or so up from the still water below him. His shins hugged its pocked and ragged sides; his feet were knotted at the ankles behind him for balance. Delaney was a sailor, and this was not much different than dock posts in port where he’d sat many times to take his lunch. He was young enough not to be troubled with a little pain in the backside, old enough to have felt his share of it. No, the post wasn’t the problem.

The focus of this whole paragraph is on the post. No action here. We don’t need any because we are entranced with the painting of a picture so vivid that we are tempted to wriggle in our reading chair to relieve the psychosomatic pain that developed in our own backsides as we read. We are revolted at the quandary of the post, and yet the post is not the real predicament. The scope of the dilemma grows and so does the dread (intrigue).

The pond from which the post jutted was not terribly troublesome either. It was a lagoon, really, less than a hundred yards across, no more than fifty yards to shore in any direction. He could swim that distance easily. He peered down through the water, past its smooth still surface and eyed the silver-green flash of scales, lit bright by the noonday sun.

The piranha, now, they were something vexing.

The dread of the predicament increases and reaches its climax in a single-sentence paragraph. Polivka’s use of that single sentence does two things: (a) it reveals the horrendous problem in a moment so that its realization is immediate, and (b) it is the verbal equivalent of a symphonic clash of cymbals – it jolts you.

Such a beginning is so intriguing, the potential of so many story lines, that the reader is struck with wonder of not only how the one in the predicament is going to get out of it (if he does), but where the story as a whole is going to go.

In terms of seed and blossom (or the building block which "must be sturdy enough, strong enough to support the story to come," Conflict, Action & Suspense, p41) it turns out that the sailor on the pole is the catalyst for a variety of ways in which the story is told, i.e., his recollection of events first-hand, or the recollection of the tales of a skilled pirate story-teller, whose delightful character is worthy of an article in itself.

This is ‘opening’ at its best.

Promoting Blaggard’s Moon, August 2010 Christian Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour, Day 1

2010-08-23T16:51:00.000-07:00

I’m reading Blaggard’s Moon, by George Bryan Polivka, and am wondering why it has never made the New York Times Bestsellers list. Actually, there is no mystery to it - it hasn’t been discovered, yet. Whose fault is that? As Randy Ingermanson once pointed out in an e-zine, nobody is more interested in your book than you are. The burden of marketing one’s book lies heavily on the shoulders of the author. Those who have spent the time (and, I assume, the money) to promote their own books unrelentingly have largely been rewarded for their efforts. If Polivka were to do the same, assuming he has the interest and the means to do it, I think this book could make it big.

For so-so books, or even books that are above average, I would say that it is justifiable for the bulk of promotional responsibility to be on the author. But a book of this caliber should find more than its own author as the promoter.

The publisher comes to mind. Why would a publisher not seek to get the word out on this book is a mystery to me, unless he doesn’t recognize the book to be as good as it is. Surely, that is not so. Perhaps the publisher has to be careful during this economic downturn and cannot afford to devote the time or money to it. If that is the only reason, there should be a change of heart as soon as recovery comes. Perhaps the publishing house believes that many of its books could equally vie for such attention. That may be true, but I cannot think there could be one better than Blaggard’s Moon. The publisher would do well to take a serious look at what could be done to bring this book to the attention of the reading community. I don’t think it would take a lot; once discovered, word of mouth surely will do the rest.

The author and publisher are not the only factors in the promotion of such a book. There are other influential causes: Blogs and websites whose purpose is to bring attention to good Christian works. Other (well-known and respected) authors could take up the cause. Those who have already read it could do more to get the word out.

Why does it matter? A more pertinent question for me, an aspiring author, is why should I be concerned about the well-being of another’s work; don’t I have enough to handle as it is - trying to produce the best possible work given my time and talent, its publication, and most difficult of all, its marketing?

One might consider that if the general recognition and respect for modern Christian literary works were raised by one successful author (whatever his genre), it might bode well for others of similar aspiration. That might be true, but only possible if the hopeful beneficiaries are themselves exceptionally good writers – as Polivka is. And it is this latter point that is the single reason that makes the promotion of Blaggard’s Moon so reasonable and worthy. It is a novel in which the writing is a work of art. It is the exemplar of which many of us need to become familiar and by it learn the craft of writing.

For that reason, I intend to write a series of articles in which I will use Blaggard’s Moon to illustrate the principles of good writing and story crafting. The first two of these will appear as my second and third posting for the August 2010 Christian Fiction and Fantasy Blog tour.

Startlighter, by Bryan Davis - Day Three of the July 2010 CSFF Blog Tour

2010-07-20T22:08:00.000-07:00

Starlighter, book 1 of the Dragons of Starlight series
by Bryan Davis
Published by Zondervan, 2010

Thanks to Zondervan for kindly providing a copy of Starlighter for review on the Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

In my preceding posts, I have been rather blunt in saying that the writing in current-day Christian fantasy for the young (13 - 16 year olds) is quite poor and that Starlighter is no different.

My goal has not been to put a bulls-eye on Bryan Davis. I’m not only trying to review a book - and I think have done that, more or less - but I’m also trying to bring attention to the sad state of writing in the current-day genre. Bryan Davis happened to be on the chopping block. In my mind, others could have been there and the critique would have been just as harsh; in some cases, harsher.

This is my concern. A chief motive behind the CSFF blog tour is to raise awareness of Christian fantasy so that editors and publishers would not shy away from it. The purported reason is that Christian fantasy is a small market. No doubt, that is part of it. But I think an unspoken, underlying reason is because the quality of the writing itself is simply poor.

A thought experiment might give credence to this assessment.

Let us envision one named Joe (the name is fictional and any similarity of persons in real life is not entirely coincidental - Joe might be any one of us). Joe has written several Christian fantasy novels for YA, which have been published by Christian publishers and have been fairly well received by a substantial contingent of Christian readers. The reception has been so positive that he receives the acclaim of not only other well-known (to the Christian community, that is) authors of his genre, but even by some Christians who write outside of it. Joe does admit, however, that since the latter generally write for a Christian audience, the common goal of writing for the Christian reader may have something to do with their praise.

After such laud and honor, Joe begins to think he should be able to get published by one of the major mainstream ‘secular’ publishing houses. He’s not arrogant; he simply sees a viable opportunity to raise the respect of Christian fantasy up a notch or two in the eyes of the secular world - reader and publisher alike.

‘But how would Christian fantasy be received by these publishers?’ Joe wonders. Joe gets on Amazon and takes a look at the (few) bad reviews of his own novels. He discovers that the primary reason for the bad rating is because of the Christian element. It was too preachy, too much pushing a religious agenda. “Ah ha!” Joe cries, “I’ve got it! I’ll write a fantasy novel but without the religious slant to it. And then I’ll get it published by one of those big houses, like the one that did J K Rowling’s. Brilliant!”

Joe has to admit he’s feeling a little guilty over this - it has the smell of compromising his Christian principles, watering down the story just to make it palpable. He thinks about it a bit and decides, ‘No! If I can get my work published by the biggies, I will have proven that Christians can write fantasy with the best of them. And then... then I’ll be able to work in Christian themes bit by bit.’

So, Joe gets to work and produces his first novel of a new series, taking more care with it than he has ever done before. To his surprise and delight, he finds that he is able to work in some symbolism and imagery that definitely has some moral value to it; granted it is, as he feared it would be, watered down, but it’s there and no more religiously blatant than what one would find in any other popular non-Christian work (he spent a good deal of time making sure of this, even asking some of his most trusted endorsers to make an assessment, and they agree with him - it’s neutrally safe).

Joe feels really good about his prospects now and through a respected agent who already has a successful track record, submits his work to the top-notch, big time publishers.

But to Joe’s dismay he receives rejection... after rejection... after rejection. Years later, the manuscript sits in a dusty desk drawer, forgotten, and with it most of the embarrassing memories.

Why was Joe rejected? If you are honest, the moment this imaginary scenario contemplated the mainstream publication of one of ‘us,’ you thought or suppressed the temptation to think, ‘No way. There’s too much competition out there, so many elite names, so many unbelievably good works...’

That’s the problem. We aren’t writing stuff that comes even close to what our successful secular peers are writing.

And it does matter. A Christian writer ought to strive to be among the best of writers. We are redeemed image-bearers of God, part of which entails our imaging his creation-work in our writing. The creation of a fictional world (Randy Ingermanson calls it ‘story-world’) is akin to the creation-work of God, and just as God spoke into being a cosmos with exquisite design, order, and beauty, so should our words create an imaginary world of fine craftsmanship.

We’re not doing that. For whatever reason, we are failing, and until we honestly face up to it, Christian fantasy for the young is not going to change; it will remain second- and third-rate pablum. Let’s take a hard critical look at what we’re producing. It’s not good. By the God-given talent each one of us has, we can change that. But it will take work. God created by simply speaking. We image his speech by writing, speaking the words onto paper, but our speech does not come easy. Regardless, we must write with great care and attention, laboring over syntax, phrasing, vocabulary, rhythm, voice (ours as well as our characters'), esthetics. The first paragraph of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince has all this, and it is sustained to the last page. It crushes me; to hope I could ever write that well is glaringly ludicrous. But that is precisely what each of us should endeavor to do. Let’s be done with our mediocrity. Let’s roll up our sleeves, and put our nose to the grind. Much could be done for the promotion of the Kingdom through fantasy, but it has to be good - really good - writing. Let’s make it that good.

See a list of the participants for this month's blog tour.
See Starlighter on amazon.
See Bryan Davis's website and blog.

Startlighter, by Bryan Davis - Day Two of the July 2010 CSFF Blog Tour

2010-07-20T04:43:00.000-07:00

Starlighter, book 1 of the Dragons of Starlight series
by Bryan Davis
Published by Zondervan, 2010

Thanks to Zondervan for kindly providing a copy of Starlighter for review on the Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

One of the chief aspects of any good story is its characters. Character development is controlled by the character’s interaction with the fictional world the writer has created. Such interaction takes place between a person and other persons, or between a person and his environment (situations and events). Another way to state it is to say that for any given person in the story, interaction takes place not only with the setting of the fantasy world, but also with other characters within that setting.
Take the simple idea of someone sitting at a dinner table, engaged in eating a meal. There are others at the table participating in the same meal. What typically happens in such a setting? Usually it’s uncomplicated: people eat their food and converse with each other. But assume that in our scene there is one character whose presence is important to the story, and the impact of that character in the story may depend significantly on that simple dinner scene.

The situation and the character work together. The setting and its circumstances facilitate the animation of the character because we can watch the character in a context, and by his reaction and dialogue within that context, see his personality unwrap.

If the character at the dinner table is moody, he may sit with his eyes fixed on his plate, spooning his food away without the slightest hint of interest over what the others are eating or conversing; it will show in his face and body language, even in the manner of his eating. This single trait of moodiness could be the central point around which the whole dinner scene revolves providing potential conflict, mood, or intrigue (or a combination of these). Whatever is evoked can follow the character into another situation - one where the circumstances are different and the cast is new but takes on a nuance of which it would be devoid if not for what has already been revealed to the reader at the dinner meal.

Mood, situation, intrigue, conflict, temperament - all of this provides the writer with the material to build a delightful character.

Bryan Davis has conjured up such a character, Tibalt Blackstone, whose role is not leading, but significant and continues through a large portion of the book. Tibalt is the son of Uriel Blackstone (one of the original abductees who escapes from Starlight back to Darksphere, warns of the dragon world, and is shut away as a lunatic for his efforts). Tibber the Fibber, as Tibalt is known to his captors and inmates, is unquestionably the most colorful character in the book.

One reason for this is how the reader encounters him. Our first glimpse produces intrigue:

   As soon as the thought entered his [Jason’s] mind, a movement
caught his eye. Three doors ahead on the left, probing fingers
reached between the bars. Easing to the right to avoid them, Jason
stopped and looked at the gray-bearded face pressing against the
window’s grating. Long strands of greasy hair spilled down the
sides of his head, and his smile revealed wide gaps between sparse
teeth. p 86.

First thing you think is ‘we’re looking at a loony’ partly because he looks like someone who’s been stuck there for a very long time; the straggly, greasy hair gives that impression. But more so because whoever this person is, he’s probably lost any sense of deprivation and awareness of his horrendous plight – he’s smiling. Who would do that in these circumstances? He’s got to be a nutcase. What he says next doesn’t help to improve this impression:
   “You are finally here,” he said with a cackle. “I knew
you would come! I knew it!” p. 86

The reader scoffs, and along with Jason wants to say none too delicately, ‘Really? And who are you?’

The scene is set up for an exchange (‘dialogue’ is the technically sterile description for this) that begins to add color and life:

   Jason set the flame closer to the door and read the
number on a metal plate just above the crossbar. Cell
number twenty. “Who are you?”
   “They call me Tibber the Fibber, but my real name is
Tibalt Blackstone. I survived the Great Plague, I did.”
   “The Great Plague! Then you must be over ninety
years old.”
   “Oh, yes. As old as the hills and older than rust, my
bones are brittle, and my brain’s full of dust.” p. 86

We sense that Tibber is going to be fun to watch. The ensuing exchange between Tibber and Jason is the best in the book. You get a picture of Tibber, a crackpot who might be more sane than we think, all of which makes you warm up to him right away.

Bryan Davis was on to something with Tibber the Fibber. The power of the character continues throughout the book, giving a little extra in all those places where he appears. That is so, in spite of those subsequent encounters never gaining the liveliness of the first one. But because the reader has such a visual on Tibber from that first scene, his presence makes those passages more vibrant than they would without him.

I wish Bryan Davis had done this with all his lead characters. But, with the exception of Tibber and this initial encounter with him, the characters are flat. They appear but don’t catch our imaginative eye. We are more or less told what the characters are like rather than seeing and hearing them. To have done that no doubt would have expanded the length of the book by many, many pages, but it would have raised the overall quality several notches.
One of three elements that go into the making of a good novel, according to Stephen King, is dialogue “which brings characters to life through their speech,” (On Writing, p163). This is an area where Starlighter does not do very well (our first encounter with Tibber excepted). Not that the book is lacking in dialogue, but it lacks believable, realistic, colorful dialog. We don’t get a feel for the personality because the dialogue is too often stilted, corny, drab, consisting of short exchanges of passionless words for which the reader has little empathy. The story is intended for the young teen and older but the level of dialogue is too elementary and a bit reminiscent of Danny Orliss, the Bobsy Twins, and the Sugar Creek Gang.
As an aside, I would say that even in those successful books, the dialogue could undoubtedly have been better. I read them as a pre-teen, and even then I sensed something lacking; but for whatever reason, it didn’t make me quit reading. An example of excellent dialogue in a novel for the pre-teen reader would be The Great Brain series by John D. Fitzgerald. There the dialog is elegantly simple, but richly colorful. Fitzgerald’s characters come to life in a way that much of that genre doesn’t match. Granted, the animating power behind The Great Brain is largely due to simple and brilliant description enhanced by Fitzgerald’s own voice in the telling of the story. But the dialogue itself is singularly integral; it is full of personality; the rhythm and content of the speech combine to stamp the speaker’s personality firmly in our imagination.

Believable and personality-endowing dialogue is critical whatever the reading level. Starlighter was abysmally lacking in such dialogue.

See a list of the participants for this month's blog tour.
See Starlighter on amazon.
See Bryan Davis's website and blog.

Startlighter, by Bryan Davis - Day One of the July 2010 CSFF Blog Tour

2010-07-18T23:06:00.000-07:00

Starlighter, Book 1 of the Dragons of Starlight series by Bryan Davis
Published by Zondervan, 2010

Thanks to Zondervan for kindly providing a copy of Starlighter for review on the Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour.

Starlighter is a story of two worlds, one inhabited by dragons (Starlight), the other by humans (Darksphere). A hundred years prior, humans where abducted and taken back into the world of the dragons. They are known as the Lost Ones. The Lost Ones labor in servitude for the dragons, performing many chores of which the most important is to work in mines to retrieve a precious gas that the dragons need to survive.

About a year after the abduction, Uriel Blackstone, one of the kidnapped humans, escapes and return to Darksphere. Upon proclaiming what had happened, he was declared a lunatic by the authorities and confined, but not before predicting that one day the hidden underground gateway to the dragon world would be found and the Lost Ones rescued.

The story unfolds in a set of events that works toward the ultimate rescue of the Lost Ones, though the rescue itself waits fulfillment in subsequent installments of the series.

The reader encounters the appearance of at least five key personalities: Adrian, a boy-warrior; Elyssa, a Diviner; Koren, a gifted story-teller; Randall, of spoiled nobility turned bold warrior; and Tibber the Fibber, a whacky old man, whose knowledge is key to the success of the quest to find the underground gateway that leads to the dragon world and ultimate rescue.

Interspersed in this are references to the Code, a banned book on Darksphere, but which is read and memorized by believers (in the Creator) for its wisdom and guidance. It appears to be ancient wisdom literature in which some of the sayings are reminiscent to those of Jesus, such as, “If you wish others to treat you and your belongings with respect, then let respect for them flow in your thoughts, your speech, and your deeds.” (page 23)

The central dark secret of the tale lies in a dragon egg on Starlight. It portends the end of human existence on that planet, and possibly on Darksphere as well. It figures prominently toward the end of the book and presumably continues that prominence in the next.

I want to preface this review with a clarification that though I will use the term Christian fantasy for young adults (CFYA), I have in mind those works whose readership is between the ages of 13 to 16 (7th - 10th grade). I believe Starlighter falls in this category. Setting a limit to the age range does not mean that a book written for that audience will not appeal to those who are older. On the contrary, I think a novel written for the thirteen year old, if written well, will appeal to anyone of that age or older. The Harry Potter series is a case in point.

My impression of the story itself is mixed. I like how the story takes shape on Starlight, especially the events that center on Koren, and the venerated dragon egg toward the end of the book. The beginning was likeable as well. The middle recounted the quest for the underground passageway and its traversal, but it was not very believable to me. In particular, Achan and Elyssa taking on impossible odds and making it through with what would require superhuman strength and skill. Yes, it is a fantasy, and the fantastic does give some wiggle room, but it cannot ignore human frailty either.

One thing about the story that didn't enamor me was that it was about dragons, again. That is what Bryan Davis specializes in so it should not come as a surprise. I am not saying that a dragon story is bad, but I have yet to read any current Christian fantasy novel in which I can really ‘see’ the dragon. I know what a dragon is supposed to look like, but I find it hard to visualize one in any of those books. I lay the responsibility for that more or less on me; there may be a flaw in my imaginative abilities when it comes to dragons. Those who have enjoyed Bryan Davis's stories and dragons will undoubtedly like this story as well.

True to what is expected of today’s Christian fantasy the story begins with an action scene in which Jason and Randall face each other in a tournament. After a trick maneuver, Jason wins, and the story begins in seriousness. Contrary to the action-scene of the tournament, the story eases up - it does not race along with continued rapid-fire action. Yet, it moves quickly enough that there’s no threat of it stagnating along the way. For reasons which I will give below, I prefer a slow, steady pace (which is not the fashion as I have been told), and though Starlighter is not action-packed, it moves along more quickly than I like.

Perhaps as a symptom of trying to get things going as quickly as possible, the novel encounters a problem before the first chapter ends. It introduces so many characters in such quick succession, it became confusing for me.

I think that’s the temptation, even bane, of today’s CFYA: to bring it on fast and keep the pace going. Though the action in this novel didn’t fly, it still suffered because it moved faster than what I think a story should.

As I see it, there are two looming difficulties with fast-paced and quick moving stories:

(1) The characters tend to have little depth, little personality; the reader only knows about them, but doesn’t know them. The reason: to accommodate the pace, the scenes have to change before the characters take on color and life. There is one exception to this in Starlighter, which I’ll look at in my second post. But the novel’s characters suffer for lack of vivid personality, and the pace is probably a significant reason why.

(2) Coexistent with shallow characters are events that lack authenticity, believability, and pertinency, events which fail to elicit empathy or arouse emotions of fear, humor, joy, pain, and so on. Just as the reader does not become acquainted with the characters, neither does he live (imaginatively) within the event. He stands outside and observes, but he doesn’t have the sense of being there.

As much as the pace of the story has an impact on the authenticity of its characters and events, there is something even more fundamental than that - the writing. Good writing brings the imaginary world and its characters together in such a way that the reader ‘feels’ like he is there in the middle of it. No matter how good the story itself is, or appropriate its pace, the resolution of (1) and (2) will not come about without good writing, and much of today’s CFYA fails miserably in this area. Instead of painting masterpieces, we are producing poor quality paint-by-number imitations. In my estimation, Starlighter falls within the latter. (But see my review of By Darkness Hid, which I hold as a long awaited and happy exception to this).

I know that some would disagree vehemently with me about the quality of writing in today’s Christian fiction. Rebecca LuElla Miller, whose opinion I respect highly on all things fantasy, countered the charge against the writing quality of current Christian speculative fiction in a recent post (Jumping into the Christian Speculative Fiction Discussion) by citing four authors who, in her thinking, have produced works in which the writing is quite good. I tend to agree with regard to George Bryan Polivka, but I differ about the others. Even so, as far as I can tell, the authors cited were not writing for the younger age group, so whatever one may think of how good those writers are, they don’t represent well the group I have in mind.

I am more and more convinced that the lack of recognition for Christian fantasy for the young is not for a paucity of literary works, but for a dearth of good writing in the genre. We all, myself included, have got to do better. We are obligated to strive to excel above our secular peers, and I think very few of us really understand that. I have more to say on this, but I’m going to save it for my third post. I hope you’ll read it.

See a list of the participants for this month's blog tour.
See Starlighter on amazon.
See Bryan Davis's website and blog.

Rating Chart

By Darkness Hid, by Jill Williamson, a Review

2010-07-12T00:20:00.000-07:00

By Darkness Hid Blood of Kings Book I
Marcher Lord Press, 2009
Jill Williamson

By Darkness Hid traces the paths of two people, Achan, a male born a stray, and Vrell, a seventeen year old girl, of noble birth, who under her mother’s direction, has left her family and changed her identity (because of her small frame she is able to dress as a male roughly fourteen years old) to avoid being married off to the loathsome Prince Gidon. Her love is for Bran, of lower social rank, but who has the sympathy of her mother. Achan also has a love, Gren, of higher social rank. Because Achan is a stray, Gren’s father would not think of giving her to Achan in marriage. Achan is a not-so-devoted polytheist, Vrell is an ardent monotheist who believes in Arman, the one true God.

The story takes place in the Kingdom of Er’Rets (Hebrew Arets, meaning land or earth?), whose western portion, Therion, has been enshrouded in Darkness since its king died thirteen years prior. Darkness has overtaken the land because Arman has withdrawn his presence.

By the order of Lord Nathak, Poril (Nathak’s cook and Achan’s guardian) stands over Achan daily to ensure he drinks a foul tonic that requires Achan to chew mentha leaves to assuage the repulsive taste. The alleged purpose of the tonic is to keep disease away, but the real purpose turns out to be vital to the overall plot. Achan’s fortunes look like they might change for the better when a knight, Sir Gavin, takes him under his tutelage to become his squire. He is hopeful that this new status might eventually win the approval of Gren’s father.

Achan and Vrell have a special gift, bloodvoicing, the ability to mentally hear the thoughts of others, and to communicate telepathically with others who have the same gift. This gift is another critical element to the story.

Achan resides in Sitna. Vrell, in self-exile, resides in a fishing village called Walden’s Watch, under the care and confidence of Lady Coraline Orthrop who knows Vrell’s mother. For different reasons, both are required to go to the great city of Mahanaim, where the ‘Council of Seven’ governs. A large part of the story is their journeying to the city. Eventually, their paths cross in such a way that Vrell and Achan, though not close companions, are thrown inextricably together. What happens with Vrell and Achan at Mahanaim is key to the climax, setting things up nicely for what presumably continues in the next book.

When I have set out to read the Christian fantasy for young adults (CFYA) of our current day, including the works of the most popular authors, it has been a test of my will to persevere; I constantly come upon something about the writing that makes me look up from the reading and shake my head in despair or disbelief.

Not so with By Darkness Hid. It was a delight to read. Characters are developed well. It avoids trite, hackneyed, or melodramatic description and dialog. The various settings are described sufficiently to give the reader a participating sense of the Kingdom of Er’Rets. One empathizes with Achan who, in his low station, longs to win his beloved Gren, frustrated that her father will have nothing to do with it. The same for Vrell, who longs to be back home again, with the love of her heart, Bran.

Williamson steadily, patiently unfolds a tale in which the reader ‘feels’ the frustration and disappointment of Achan and Vrell as events carry these two farther and farther away from their hopes. It develops gradually without stalling. I like that in a novel, especially one that portends an epic saga. In my thinking, that’s the only way to do it, and Jill Williamson has done this well.

This is the author’s first novel. Compared to the current-day CFYA, it stands apart in such stark contrast I am forced to say it is in a class by itself. Its beauty and writing is unmatched and has set a new standard for CFYA, particularly for those stories that tend toward epic fantasy.

But is it among the elite? By this I mean, how does it compare to the classic Lord of the Rings, or to more modern day secular fantasies such as Harry Potter? Granted, there are distinctions to be made when making such comparisons. By Darkness Hid and its medieval setting is more akin to high fantasy than it is to fantasy set at the end of the twentieth century. In some respects you simply cannot compare it to Harry Potter because they are different types of fantasy.

But there is more than just genre comparisons. The writing itself, though controlled to a certain degree by the genre, can be compared. Admittedly, each author has his or her own style. But the question I have in mind is, regardless of the style or the genre, does the writer skillfully and artfully produce a work that approaches ‘master’ status. We often refer to the ‘old masters’ when we think of classical paintings and other works of art. That is what I mean by ‘master’ status. I think time will prove Rowling’s writing to be ranked among the masters. Does Williamson’s writing have the same quality?

I would have to say no. Does she have the potential? Maybe. We may someday sit back in awe over her craftsmanship and wonder if we could ever be that good. But though she hasn’t attained that yet, she is the first CFYA author of recent years who has come anywhere close to it.

By Darkness Hid is a very good read, not only because of the story itself, but because the writing is good. Williamson’s talent for simple and artistic description, a vital component of all good writing, is evident in the following sample. Vrell is standing on the banks overlooking the sea, below Walden Watch Manor. She, with the four Orthrop children, has come to watch Lady Coraline depart by ship to visit her ill father:

The unfamiliar warmth of the sea breeze tousled
Vrell’s short hair in and out of her eyes. Her
skin felt damp with the abrasive smell of seaweed,
fish guts, and paraffin oil from boat lamps. The
smell stuck to her. With Lady Coraline gone, Vrell
would not have a decent bath until her return.
The sea stretched out before her, calm and heavy.
Gulls swarmed the rocky shore, nipping bites of
whatever creature had died among the rocks. The beach
rose sharply up the hill until sand gave way to green
grass that ran all the way to the greystone manor walls. (p74)

I’m not a lover of the ocean and seashore, but I’ve been there, and have found some pleasure in it, in spite of my greater desire to be among the hills and woods. But I can wonderfully visualize this because there is a combination of vocabulary, syntax, grammar, mood, and craft that transports me by imagination next to Vrell, feeling the same breeze, breathing in the same scents, witnessing the same gulls.

We don’t find this quality of writing in the Christian fantasy for the young that has been written over the last decade or so, not even among the popular, lauded, and award winning authors. In my opinion CFYA has been very mediocre. Williamson has risen far above that.

One thing that has annoyed me in the current writing of CFYA is the so-called use of free indirect speech which, in the instances where I find fault, comes as a series of rhetorical questions that more or less intrude onto the page. I say intrude, because the mood of the moment does not call for them. I think it is distracting, and possibly a sign that the author is a poor writer or has been given bad instruction on the use of that technique. Unfortunately, Williamson at times makes use of this style of free indirect speech, contrary to what I would expect of such a good writer.

Here is an example:

He started off at a silent jog, keeping on
his toes. The frigid air stung his eyes. His
mind raced. All his life he’d dreamed of being
a knight; riding a horse and wielding a sword
to protect the weak. Could the gods have finally
taken notice of his measly offerings over the
years? Could his station in life really change?
If so, would Gwen’s father look at him differently? (p19)

It’s not so much that this is bad; I just think the positioning of those questions is out of place, leaving the mood flat and sterile. It misses an opportunity to use a prose that reveals rather than simply states a series of bland questions. Again, it is not that such a device is never appropriate, but I think for such questions to naturally appear, it is better for them to come in a fit of emotion (joy, fear, anger, hope, etc). Otherwise, work them in as introspective observation in which the reader gets a peek into Achan’s contemplation over his plight without encountering a colorless series of questions that presumably are passing through his mind.

To illustrate, I offer an alternative to that series of questions. (Please forgive me Jill for presuming that I could have written this better than you, but indulge for a moment my egotistical, annoying delusion that I think I know what I’m talking about).

The gods had finally noticed him. Achan quashed
that thought right away. Whatever he was getting
into, he still knew deep down he was nothing to
be noticed. It was foolhardy to think his place
in life could change. But it never hurt to dream;
dreams sometimes come true. And if this one did...
Achan took in a sudden icy breath at the thought
of this... Gwen’s father would have to change;
he’d just have to. He’d have to look at him
differently.

Written this way, I think an author is able to put his own voice into the story, which is always helpful. In this illustration, it gives the reader a sense of Achan’s temperament, revealing a bit more of what he thinks of himself and what matters most to him right now.

By the way, I do think Williamson, had she chosen to, could have done better than my proposed alternative because she knows Achan better than I do, and because she is a good writer.

Christ Figures and Aslan

2010-07-05T18:48:00.000-07:00

In response to my article On Fantasy Christ Figures, I was asked what I thought about Aslan, the great Lion in C S Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia series. It is a good question. In answer, let me begin by a statement from the original article,

“Everything that Christ did was revelatory of the Father. His body language, facial expressions, speech, choice of words, etc. was all revelatory.”

I believe that postulation to be true. Even as Christ walked amongst us before his resurrection and subsequent session at the right hand of the Father, Christ was The Revelation of God – the final revelation, as Hebrews 1:1,2 implies. His followers, in particular, the Twelve, not only witnessed what he did, but they bore witness to him.

I may observe what one does from a distance, even on a daily, sometimes hourly basis. It could be a co-worker, a celebrity, my pastor, a teacher. In a case like one of these, I may achieve some sense of what the person is like, inwardly, but it would be negligible; I have little intimate understanding of his character. I haven’t seen him close up; I haven’t been witness to how he reacts in a particularly bad, or good, set of circumstances. I am not his close, intimate friend that would permit to witness him under such conditions. Hence, in those situations, I see neither his facial expressions nor body language, nor hear the words that come out of his mouth, nor their inflection and tone, all of which convey information about the person. This information is not merely about what he is capable or incapable of being from a purely physical or intellectual perspective. More importantly, it reveals something about the character and heart. Certainly, we cannot know a man as he knows himself, but that man cannot help but reveal something about himself when we see him as he interacts with this world and its situations, and especially as he interacts with us.

That is what Christ did. He did not stand aloof from his disciples. He was in their midst such that John reminded his readers that he (and the other disciples) not only saw him, but they touched him. They witnessed not only what Christ did and what he said to the multitudes, but what he said and did within their little circle. In that intimate circle, Christ, in every aspect of his humanness, revealed the Father to them. He never spoke, facially expressed, postured, or intoned in such a manner that gave a false witness to the Father. Whether he wept or laughed, spoke softly or cried out, touched gently or gripped harshly, ignored or paid the closest of attention, whatever he did, he was revealing something about the Father. And only because it was he who behaved and spoke in that manner was there assurance of no falsehood – Christ was the Truth, the Word, and as such he declared (John 1:18) the Father with complete accuracy. He who saw Christ, saw the Father (John 14:9).

My contention is that if there is one who portrays Christ in our fantasy story, there is the danger that we may make the figure say something or behave in a certain manner, whose bearing may communicate to the reader something about God that is not completely accurate, possibly even blasphemous.

The danger of this happening increases the more the Christ figure coincides in identity with the Christ of the New Testament. Notable examples in film are Ben Hur and Passion of the Christ. In the former, Christ is on the fringe and never seen face to face. In fact, he is quite mute. In the latter, one virtually stands (and sits) next to the Messiah where, to me, his troubled, frustrated countenance appears as moody and depressing as my mean-spirited uncle’s, even at the best of times.

This is where I think there is a difference between Lewis’s Aslan and the Christ figure of some other novels. In stories in which the Christ figure is a human being, we have a figure who is an image-bearer of God and therefore capable of saying something accurately about God. The danger, his image-bearing provides the potential to say something false about God.

Animals were not made in God’s image, and as such, are not able to reflect God’s attributes. They reveal his existence and deity in much the same way all of creation does by its very existence, design, and purpose (Romans 1:20).

I am not contending that because Aslan was an animal, he was incapable of faulty revelation. In our world, a lion does not have the equipment to do so, but in the world of Narnia, the animals themselves take on some of the image-bearing attributes of men. In fact, there is often, if not always, no difference. Because of that, Aslan carries the risk that all Christ-figures bear. On the other hand, the fact that Aslan is animal, the reader is less likely to see in Aslan a parallel identity with Christ. The words that he speaks, his growling that signals anger, or a low purring growl that indicates approval or contentment are not viewed in the same way as the speech and mood of a human figure. Nevertheless, there is still the danger.

I want to digress slightly to address something that is not wholly related to the discussion, but does lead to a point that allows us to draw some conclusions.

The single event in The Chronicles of Narnia that is most tell-tale of Aslan as a Christ figure, is his ignominious sacrificial death for the despicable Edmund, and his subsequent resurrection. The scene at the Table is distanced from the close-up, intimate details of a face-to-face encounter. But the event and Aslan’s behavior through it, does make a statement about the kind of love that gives itself up in a supreme sacrifice for one who does not deserve it. In that, we have an illustration of the meaning of “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.” I see little, if anything in the Table scene, which fails to communicate that well and accurately. But then we get to the resurrection, and there, I think, is a problem. Aslan explains the meaning of why he was able to come back to life:

“It means,” said Aslan, “that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know... if she could have looked a littler further back... she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, page 163, Scholastic, 1995)

Here, we have the words of Aslan himself (we can say we have Aslanic revelation), explaining his resurrection in terms of a deeper magic which worked on the principle that only a willing victim who had committed no treachery, qualified to be raised from the dead. The reference to magic does not bother me as I take it to refer to a profound entity above and beyond what is found in the natural world - whose existence, in fact, is from Aslan’s father, the Emperor Over the Sea. The deep and deeper magic in the world of Narnia, is what supernatural (the biblical concept) is in our world. What does bother me is that the principle on which Aslan’s resurrection was based; “a willing victim who has committed no treachery” is not completely accurate. Granted, in that principle one may see parallels to the sinlessness of Christ and as such, his perfect, spotless (sinless) sacrifice. But Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient not merely because he was sinless. If an angel became incarnate and died as a sacrifice (as the Jehovah’s Witness believes) he would have satisfied that criteria as well. But the sacrifice of an incarnate angel would not meet the demand of justice from an infinitely holy God, against whom disobedience is an infinite offense. Such requires one who is capable of paying an infinite debt, and only God himself can pay such a debt. If Christ had not satisfied the justice of God for the sins of his people, he would not have risen from the dead; and he could not have satisfied the just demands of God unless he was God himself. This point does not come out in Aslan’s explanation of his resurrection, and only by remembering that Aslan is the son of the Emperor Over the Seas, the creator of the Deep and Deeper magic, could such a point be implicitly made.

To get back to our discussion, the explanation of Aslan’s resurrection and its flaws does show for us that Aslan is not the perfect Christ figure, that is, he is not, in every aspect of his character an identity with the New Testament Christ. This fact, and the question of image-bearing, probably makes Aslan a safe figure, one whose likelihood to persuasively say something false about God is rather small.

In my estimation, the problem with a fantasy Christ figure turns on whether or not the figure is a human being. Presently, I would be loathe to include a Christ figure in any of my stories portrayed by a man. In fact, I would be very hesitant to include anything, man or animal, whose role is by design such a figure. The risk is too great that my character might be unchrist-like, not intentionally, but inadvertently.

I read almost half of the novel, The Shack, by William Paul Young, a bestseller. I once sat in a hospital waiting room across from one who was avidly devouring its pages. I could not finish it. Its depiction of a Trinity was so human and trite that the three musketeers, “One for all and all for one,” could have done the job better. It was blasphemous. The laid back Dude, Jesus, is so banal and misrepresentative of the Second Person of the Trinity (the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who judges and makes war in righteousness, Rev 19:11; who in flaming fire will take vengeance on his and our enemies, 2 Thess 1:6-10; who stands before the throne of God as a Lamb, slain, Rev 5:6; before whom multitudes upon multitudes cry out in praise and adoration, Rev 5:8-13; before whom the most intimate and holy angels fall down and worship, Rev 5:14), that he is horrendously blasphemous. To say everything that ought to be said about that scandalous book would take another article, and my muster to finish reading it. I don’t think I can do that.

Reflecting God’s Creation-Work in Our Writing

2010-06-26T08:06:00.000-07:00

Man was created in God’s image and as such it is a certainty that writers, members of the race of men, are also created in his image. There are many things that go into the meaning of ‘God’s image’ but I want to dwell a little on that aspect in which the role of man as creator is akin to God who is The Creator.

Whatever one’s profession or craft may be, there is always some creativity that goes into it. Whether it be slinging garbage into a garbage truck, preparation of a dinner for a family of five, or the swinging of a bat to hit a ninety mile-an-hour fastball, there is creativity. Certainly, there are common rules one must abide by - put the garbage in the back of the truck, not the front; bring the water to a boil to cook the potatoes; keep your head down and eyes on the ball. But within the framework of those rules, there is also room to put your own stamp on it. I would surmise that slinging garbage could take on a variety of styles, but it is likely that room for creativity in that area is limited. But still there is room.

When it comes to writing, there is a vast panorama of possibilities. I think the fundamental reason is this: a story, from conception to completed work, has intrinsic parallels to the creation-work of God. God conceives of all creative possibilities at once and has done so eternally. At the time of creation (that is, that time when there was absolutely nothing but the Triune God himself, and then by divine fiat, there was something) God sovereignly chose to bring into being only some of those ideas. There was choice on his part; not an arbitrary choice, but a choice based on wisdom and knowledge so deep and mysterious, we cannot understand it except in a very small way. The actual bringing into existence was by speech – God spoke and it was. God’s word is a creating word, that is, it cannot help but bring into existence what is spoken.

The writer, the image-bearer of God, analogically creates; his creation-work parallels God’s. All writers analogically create. Whether Christian or pagan, they cannot help but do this because they cannot help but reflect God’s image.

The writer conceives of many possibilities as he contemplates the makings of his story - the world, the characters, the events and the interaction of all three with each other. He chooses some among the multitude of possibilities and abandons others. Our creating is merely analogical to God’s and as such, there is an incomparable difference between God’s creating and ours. God did not have to think about the possibilities in the sense of discovering them – they were always present in his mind. But we have to think of them, conjure them, so to speak, based on what we know and experience. These possible ideas are borrowed and temporal; God’s ideas are original and eternal. But regardless of the difference between our creating and God’s, there are still similarities, and the ideas behind the stories are just a part of it.

The writer, in a manner, brings into existence a world wherein his story unfolds. Obviously, by existence I do not mean in actuality. But we do bring about a world with which the reader of the story resonates. One might say that, in a certain way, the writer brings into actual existence an imaginary world. That sounds contradictory, but it really is not. I, along with millions of other readers, have found myself in the midst of such an imaginary world because the story itself has drawn me into it; through my imagination, I enter that world, and the events and characters take on a sense of reality. I can see it in my minds eye so vividly, that it feels real, it feels like I’m right there, observing and sensing what the imaginary characters themselves see and feel.

In God’s creation-work, the world was brought into existence by his powerful word. In our story-creation, the same thing happens, analogically. Our words create a fantasy existence which the reader experiences through his imagination.

God’s word is powerful, bringing about a handiwork that declares his glory. It is breathtaking. It is profound. God’s creative word places us physically within that handiwork, making us an integral part of it. We interact with it. Our story telling should mimic the divine word; it should produce a tale of fine artisanship, so powerful in the telling (and reading) of it, that the reader is drawn into it and experiences it.

As Christians, the world we create through our words should glorify God. This is done not only by transmitting unveiled biblical truth (there is no other kind of truth), but doing such in an imaginary world whose intricate parts are woven together through superb literary craftsmanship.

God created all-powerfully producing a magnificent creation marked by precision, order, and design. For God, this was effortless, the mere speaking of it into existence. We want to create an imaginary world that similarly exhibits precision, order, and design, but unlike God’s effortless speech, the creation of such a world takes exacting labor on our part. The writer must throw every ounce of care he has into constructing phrases, sentences, paragraphs that knit seamlessly a believable world. This does not mean flowery or witty. It means realism. The world must be imaginatively real, as vivid as the one the reader walks into when he opens the front door and steps out. It takes careful development of character and voice, of events and their interrelation to other events and characters. It cannot be shoddy, superficial, wooden, hackneyed, or stereotypical.

Perhaps, Christian fantasy by its nature has the most fertile possibilities available. It possesses great opportunities, and as image-bearers of God and saints by his grace, we must produce the very best, excelling beyond our secular peers. In my estimation, an undesirable portion of current-day Christian fantasy for the young falls far short of such a standard. The Christian fantasy writer for the young must create an imaginary world in which the reader cannot help but slip into, where the biblical truth is unequivocal and without fuzziness, exhibiting intelligence, skill, and craft. It should be timeless and enduring, fascinating the youthful reader on into adulthood. As a corollary of this, it should appeal and charm the reader of any age. But most of all, as the material universe itself exclaims God’s glory, our fictional world should likewise point back to the Ultimate Creator and exalt him:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
Psalm 19:1-4 (ESV)
TCB

On Fantasy Christ Figures

2010-06-08T22:17:00.000-07:00

I'm reading a Christian fantasy novel by a well-known (among Christian fantasy lovers, that is) and award-winning author whom I won't identify for now; I'll just refer to him (the old-fashioned generic masculine that could be either male or female) as Author-X. Someday, perhaps, I'll name names, but not now.

It's Author-X's first novel and that may explain the low quality of the writing. I cannot count the times I have had to lay the book down out of disgust or despair, often both. I suspect that the author's debut novel came at a time when Christian fantasy was an even less appreciated genre than it is now (gone are the days of Lewis and Tolkien). Because it was new and different, it was also exciting. But, in my opinion, the writing itself falls well below an acceptable level.

We authors of Christian fantasy must strive to be the best, better than our secular peers. With J. K. Rowling in the mix, that is an extremely difficult task. Not that we should seek to mimic her style, but we can study her and perhaps find something useful.

I am in the third quarter of the book, and I'm beginning to find something else that is disturbing. I may be completely off the mark, and might find after more reading that my first take on the matter is simply wrong. It has to do with one of the characters that has unmistakeable features of a Christ figure. To be sure, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the fantasy figure and the Christ of the Bible. Perhaps if there were, I wouldn't be so concerned; I would expect that the figure would be more closely aligned with the Christ of sacred scripture, and presented in the way the authors of the gospels wrote about him.

But I find Author-X's character romanticized, handsome, always smiling, playful, all too ready to reach out and stroke another in an effort to comfort, or show concern. Here is the reason this bothers me, and what I say here not only goes for any literature that seeks to portray Christ in any detail, but also (perhaps even more so) for cinema.

Christ is the revelation of God.

John 1:18 succinctly puts it this way,

"The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."

The word 'declared' is the same Greek word that theologians and biblical scholars use to describe the manner in which the text of the Bible is examined so that, as much as is possible, its meaning is elicited accurately and fully. The word is exegete. Christ exegetes the Father, unpacks the character, nature, judgment, will, power, etc. of the First Person of the Trinity. When Philip asked Christ to show them the Father, Jesus responded,

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?", John 14:9.

Everything that Christ did was revelatory of the Father. His body language, facial expressions, speech, choice of words, etc. was all revelatory. John was very careful to bring that out in his gospel and it is no wonder that he begins his first canonical epistle with a reference to his (and the other apostle's) familiarity with these things:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of Life...that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us..." I John 1:1,3.

If we attempt to portray Christ, whether in the imagery of our fantasy writing or on the stage or in cinema, do we not run the risk of conveying something about him (and therefore, of the Father) that is simply not true, possibly even blasphemous?

I remember watching the movie, Ben Hur, as a youth, and how Cecil B DeMille handled the appearances of Christ. There was never a shot of his face, and if the Christ figure was viewed in full, it was always from behind, motionless (except perhaps a slow turning of the head as he watched Ben Hur from a distance just before the Sermon on the Mount), giving little to decipher about the incarnate Son of God.

Beautiful!

I think as Christian fantasy writers, we ought to steer clear of such dangerous territory. Let's not make the King of kings and Lord of lords reveal anything more than what the written revelation of God reveals.

Fast-Paced Is The Fashion, Unfortunately

2010-04-20T23:09:00.000-07:00

.
In Phyllis Wheeler's review of The Oerken Leaves she begins the section on what she thinks of the story by saying

This book has a classic, slow-paced feel, especially at the beginning. So it’s not particularly fashionable. But I like classics, don’t you?

Let me say up front that I am not criticizing Phyllis's review, or think that she has missed the mark on what is and what is not fashionable. I am taking her word for it, and it is the state of fashion that I am confronting, not Wheeler.

Now by fashionable, I take it to mean that what is in fashion is a story that moves from one scene to another quickly, or a story wherein changes in the action follow closely on the heels of each other.

Fashionable implies that in the estimation of the world of readers of fantasy, this is the only thing worth reading right now. Now I think fast-paced has its place, especially if the reader is looking for a change of pace. But surely, as fashionable as it may be, can fast-paced really be that good? It seems to me that a steady reading of nothing but fast-paced novels would be like choosing the roller-coaster for every ride at the fair. Let me see if I can convey to you how drastic the picture is. It would be like arriving at the park at dusk and going straight to the roller-coaster and ride it all night until the park closes at which time you make a bee-line exit. No elephant ears or pizza; no cognizance of little kids tugging their parents this way and that to get as much in as they can before Mom and Dad call it a night. It misses out on the heady feeling when stuck at the top of the ferris wheel while the whole dazzling world of light and color below comes at you like the opening scene of an oscar winning movie. You have no chance to stroll past the barkers wondering what it would be like to do what they do. You missed out on the balloon busting dart throw, or the side step around a hotdog which someone had the misfortune of dropping. I could say more, but you get the idea.

A steady consumption of fast-paced novels, like the continuous ride of the roller-coaster, will sooner or later become monotonous and boring. Not merely because its the same beat over and over (anything done repetitively will become monotonous and boring in time) but because fast-paced does not allow for the reader to imaginatively become a part of the story. Before the reader can achieve any sense of participation at any given point, he's forced to move on. He doesn't get to know the characters because he has little time to notice them. A good story draws the reader into the middle of it, where he can see and hear and feel the fictional world as though he were part of it. The reader lives in the story through the proxy of one of the characters, or as an enthused silent partner, or perhaps both; but he is there, in the thick of it, in on every little detail and caught up in the experiences - delight and despair, feast and famine, greed and generosity, rags and riches. You cannot do that with any depth and quality unless you get to settle down and rub elbows with the characters. And you can't rub elbows if you and the characters don't have the opportunity to stick around with each other.

But I think it is worse than that. Fast-paced makes for poor writing, or perhaps because one is a poor writer, fast-paced is what works best. No real character development is possible. No iridescent blossoming of plot. No animated interaction between character and character or character and his circumstances. It tends toward bland narrative (reporting of events, thoughts, and speech) rather than vivid story-telling (which draws the reader in so that he imaginatively experiences it). Story-telling requires good, quality writing, but the fast-paced tale does not. That is why the classics (Lewis, Tolkien, Clemens) and those surely destined to become classics (Rowling) are slow paced - the writing made it that way and is a quality that few authors are able to match.