CSFF Tour-Mindflights, 3

Banners, banners, and more banners, not to mention buttons. In case members or friends of CSFF have missed it, we have banners and buttons available. In fact, one of our members, Robert Treskillard created a number of additional ones of various sizes and looks. Quite sharp. These are free for the taking, and we welcome you displaying buttons or banners on your own site.

As I’m sure regular readers have notice, I’ve moved beyond simply listing the blog tour participants and have given a method for visitors to know which other sites they may wish to tour. I’ve also decided to give a Top Tour Participant Award to the blogger who has written the best content over the three days of the tour. This is significant to me because the CSFF tours are as much about my visitors learning about other CSFF’ers as it is about promoting our genre and our feature.

And speaking of our feature, the spotlight this month is on MindFlights. I suspect most writers who stopped by the web site were quick to check out the submission guidelines. I suppose it’s what we do. One point caught my attention right away. While the editorial staff (I assume that is the “we” mentioned) believes “ultimate truth resides in the person of Jesus Christ, who as Savior embraces us with eternal life, and as Lord asks that we give ourselves over to service, to love, to purity, and to a greater purpose,” their writers are not required to believe the same.

From the MindFlights guidelines:

We are not isolationists. We don’t bar the door to the skeptic, or the seeker who hasn’t found, or the one who has an allegiance to a different set of doctrines. Our faith says the door should be open for all who want to befriend us. Hospitality is an early and enduring virtue in Christendom. Therefore, we want to offer broader visions of truth. While contributors need not be Christian, familiarity with compatible values will increase the likelihood that your submission will fit.

So here’s kind of the reverse approach from that of the general book publishers—starting out with a Christian worldview and willing to include anyone not opposed to it (in contrast to starting out with a non-Christian worldview and willing to include anyone not too overt in their differing view). I find the idea intriguing. After all, I would characterize most of my writing as aimed at Both, Christian and non-Christian alike.

The realities of marketing in today’s society, however, seem to dictate the need to “target” a particular group. My decision was to earmark Christians and leave it in their hands to pass my writing along to the non-Christians in their world. That strategy may or may not work.

But what about MindFlights? In their decision to be inclusive—hospitable, I believe was their term—are they gaining or losing an audience? And is there any way to know? I mean, unlike Christian bookstores or the shelves of Christian fiction in a general market store, there is no way of knowing who visits MindFlights, barring a poll of some kind.

Of course, there was no Big Announcement of a change of policy, so perhaps there has been no change in readership, other than would be expected from the merge of two established webzines.

Seems to me a webzine, and a book store, for that matter, should be very different from a church. After all, Christians are to be in the world but not of it. So “in” seems to mean non-Christians can hang around with us and enter into discussion with us about our plots, our characters, our themes, our faith, our hope, our Savior.

OK, before posting the list of other May CSFF Blog Tour participants, I want to make the first Top Tour Blogger Award. For his three posts on MindFlights, the award goes to Steve Rice, who, by the way, takes a different view from mine about MindFlights’ change of direction.

And the others:

*Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
**Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
*Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Pamela Morrisson
*John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
**Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir’s Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
*Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Bold type indicates a site I know has posted.
An * indicates “must read” content.
** “Must read” content, an intriguing discussion you might want to join

CSFF Blog Tour - MindFlights, Day 2

We’re continuing the CSFF Tour for MindFlights, but I want to make an announcement first. This month we’ve been taking nominations for the Clive Staples Award. Although I’m sure there are other fans of speculative fiction who aren’t yet aware of the award and would like to include a nomination, I think we’ll have to set a deadline so we can get on with the judging. So, last day for nominations will be June 15.

And now, back to MindFlights.

Today I read one of the short stories offered and thought I’d give a review of it. Because I’m a fantasy fan, I chose “The Other’s Mission” by Matthew Wuertz.

Summary. The story mirrors a missionary story, with a person from another place coming to tell a people group the Truth. Even though it is recognizable, I didn’t find it predictable. Wuertz hooked me from the opening by creating a likable point of view character and a likable protagonist.

Strengths. I already mentioned the strong opening that pulled me into the story and the appealing characters that made me care. Wuertz also created a world I could easily imagine. Without stopping the action he provided vivid descriptions. He also created a strong central conflict that drove the story, and he added increasing tension and suspense. So even though I knew the direction the story was going, I wanted to see how it played out.

The theme was clear and strong but Wuertz avoided the dread “preachiness” of authorial instruction or explanation to his readers.

Finally, the writing was strong. Nothing jarred my inner ear or pulled me from the story. His similes were appropriate for the culture and character he created.

Weakness. I liked this story so much, it’s hard for me to think of something to point to here. One way Wuertz could strengthen the story would be to include description appealing to all the senses. Mind you, I felt like I knew this world, these people, but I am a visual person, so it was easy for me to “see” them as Wuertz described them. But looking back, I noticed places where an appeal to other senses would have sharpened the scene. For example, the smell of the ogres or a word about how the POV character felt, especially when he fell.

Recommendation. If “The Other’s Mission” is representative of the stories in MindFlights, then this publication is going for high quality. Highly recommend you take time to read this story and others you’ll find in the genre of your choice.

Don’t forget to stop by other blogs discussing MindFlights:

*Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
*Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Pamela Morrisson
*John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
**Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir’s Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
*Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Bold type indicates a site I know has posted.
An * indicates “must read” content.
** “Must read” content, an intriguing discussion you might want to join

CSFF Blog Tour - MindFlights, Day 1

Yea! Blog Tour time! We have another good one, too. This month our feature is the online publication, MindFlights.

One of the reasons I’m happy we highlight online sites is because EVERYONE can take a look at what’s offered. It doesn’t cost a dime. Much of what MindFlights publishes is short fiction, so those who have been curious about fantasy or science fiction but haven’t wanted to invest in books they’re unsure about, actually have some examples to read. For free.

But there’s more than short fiction. MindFlights also publishes a serialized novel, poetry, articles, and artwork. In addition, they provide discussion forums. It’s a great concept. Readers can give writers direct feedback. What did you like about a story? What don’t you get? It’s the kind of dialogue a reader rarely gets with a novelist. The thing is, I think it is also helpful and possibly encouraging for a writer, too.

What I want to do, however, at least today, is to introduce you to one of the people behind the scenes, Selena Thomason. For some time, Selena headed up the editorial team at Dragons, Knights, and Angels. When that publication merged with the Sword Review, she became the managing editor of MindFlights.

Selena is also a writer, as I suspect are all the volunteer editors. Although she’s working on several science fiction novels, her publishing credits include quite an array of short shories:

• Mood Meds
  published in The Courier
  (April 2008 )
• The Word
  published in Anathema
  (April 2008 )
• Designed Development
  published in Chaos Theory: Tales Askew
  (November 2007)
• Gifted
  published in Residential Aliens
  (November 2007)
• Anonymous
  published in Every Day Fiction
  (September 2007)
• Robbie’s Repair
  published in 365 tomorrows
  (March 2007)
• Ian Gets Involved
  published in 365 tomorrows
  (March 2007)
• Flowers for My Beloved
  published in The Literary Bone
  (Spring 2007)

This Floridian writer has been involved in the NaNo Writing Month for the past three years. Excerpts of her work are available at her NaNo site. You can read more from Selena about her life and writing on her blog.

Selena has quite an interesting array of recommended books listed on her Web site. Her fiction selections (and her comments about the books) include the following:

The Curse of Chalion
by Lois McMaster Bujold
Wow! Set in the same world as Paladin of Souls it’s got the same fascinating religion. Plus an intricate plot and compelling characters. For a more detailed review see DKA or my blog. This book is highly recommended.

Changing Planes
by Ursula K. LeGuin
A fun book full of imaginative short stories.

The Time Traveler’s Wife
by Audrey Niffenegger
Quite possibly the most unique romance of all time! This book is beyond wonderful. It’s got a truly great concept and the stellar writing to back it up. Highly recommended.

Paladin of Souls
by Lois McMaster Bujold
This fantasy book is one of my favorites. It’s got a rich world and a truly fascinating religion. Highly recommended. See blog entries 10/28/05, 10/22/05, and 10/12/05.

Oryx and Crake
by Margaret Atwood
see related blog posts 5/9/05 and 4/20/05.
A truly great book! Margaret Atwood is brilliant and one of my favorite writers.

The Dress Lodger
by Sheri Holman
I don’t normally like historical novels, but this one got me. (Actually maybe I just don’t think of myself as someone who likes historical novels because I notice a couple on this list. Maybe it’s because I don’t generally like history or books on history. That’s terrible, I know.) Heartbreaking poverty. Cholera before the science of infectious diseases was understood.

Want to learn more about MindFlights, the stories, the people who make it happen? Check out what others on the tour are saying.

Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Pamela Morrisson
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir’s Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Bold type indicates a site I know has posted.

Fantasy Friday - Thoughts on Lewis

In one email group this week, someone posted a link to an article entitled “Awakening Narnia with Bacchanalian Feasts.” I don’t want to post the link because, quite frankly I’m not interested in driving traffic to that site. If you want to read it, of course you can simply by Googling it.

The gist of the article is captured in this quote: “Many [readers captivated by Lewis's storytelling] forget that magic, divination and astrology — both real and imagined — clash with God’s Word.”

Unfortunately, this article was not posted on a blog, allowing for comment. I was able to find an email address, however, and this was my reaction:

Hi, [author's name]

I read your article about Prince Caspian. I applaud your desire to read with discernment. Our culture, including the church, seems to be moving away from analytical thinking.

Unfortunately, I think your knowledge of Greek myths and undue literalism may be coloring your judgment.

Fantasy literature is very different from the realism of literary or other genre fiction. The fantasy world is one of the author’s imagination. Therefore, if Mr. Lewis wants the Creator-Lion’s power to be called magic, it does not mean he is ascribing to a belief in the “magic”—demonic power—of this world. When he brings in Bacchus as a character, there is no reason to assume Lewis was putting a stamp of approval on debauchery and madness. Rather, his implication is the redemption of the world.

In Surprised by Joy, Mr. Lewis’s non-fiction work recounting his coming to faith, he states plainly the tipping point was when he realized that the Christian story is actually the True myth. In his thinking, knowing that Christ did die on the cross and did rise from the dead, redeemed all myth, for he found in those pagan stories the echo of truth, the yearning after that which they did not know.

Of course, I have no way of knowing at this point how the movie will portray Mr. Lewis’s story, but the Narnia books, in my opinion, do a remarkable job shining light on Christ—the Creator-King, the Lion of Judah, the suffering Savior, the all powerful Friend, and so much more.

This, in my view, is the best kind of fantasy. The parts of the made up world are not to be understood literally or even allegorically. Rather, the stories are more reminiscent of parables. Even Jesus used an unjust judge in one of his stories to teach something about God.

Perhaps if you could set aside what you know about Bacchus or magic or witches, and read the story that Mr. Lewis wrote instead, you might see why so many Christians celebrate his fiction and desire to write like him.

No surprise, I haven’t heard back from the author. I suspect my line about the stories coming from his imagination didn’t win any points. She has a link (which I didn’t read) to an article (or articles?) about imagination. It’s associated with the reader’s imagination, so I didn’t think at the time it was relevant, but then, I don’t think I fully grasp the point from which arguments against fantasy come.

Evangelical Manifesto - Part 4

Unless there’s more discussion on the topic, I’m going to wrap up my views of the Evangelical Manifesto today.

The third section of the document, which I initially termed “let’s all get along,” (and actually listed in the Manifesto as “We Must Rethink Our Place in Public Life”) makes some good points.

The opening, grounded in Scripture, lays out a guiding principle too often ignored.

Citizens of the City of God, we are resident aliens in the Earthly City. Called by Jesus to be “in” the world but “not of” the world, we are fully engaged in public affairs, but never completely equated with party, partisan ideology, economic system, class, tribe, or national identity.

In light of this fundamental concept, the Manifesto then decries several extremes. The first set is the privatization of faith on one hand with the politicization of it on the other. Good points, I think. Our faith should not be divorced from our public life, nor should it be something we try to establish around us through the political process.

The second set of extremes is similar. In the terms of the Manifesto, Evangelicals ought to repudiate the effort to establish a sacred public square on one hand, but also to repudiate the effort to establish a “naked” public square on the other. The point here is that the public square—rather than stripping faith from all discussion—should be a place for civil discourse, even when discussing faith—any faith or even no faith.

Much is made here of avoiding Constantine’s approach—establishing Christianity as Truth through governmental decree—and following Jesus’s example instead. Part of the reason for this seems to be the desire to eliminate the “powerful backlash against all religion in public life among many educated people.”

Another factor seems to be “the fact that the advance of globalization and emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage.”

Here is where I begin to disagree with the direction this section is heading. I would counter that Jesus, who the writers of this Manifesto say they want to follow, was not concerned with us living freely, justly, peacefully with our deepest differences. Rather, he told his followers to shake the dust off their feet when confronted with people who rejected their message, and move on. He told them they could expect persecution, not peace; he warned that if the world hated Him, it will hate us.

The point is, the declaration that Jesus is The way, truth, life, is an affront to those in our society who have rejected Him. And this will always be so, no matter how kindly we speak, how fairly we treat others, how much we stand for justice.

The burden, in my view, is for Christians to love our neighbors without any expectation that we will receive anything in return except ridicule, hatred, vindictive slights, and worse. Why should we expect people of other faiths to act in a Christ-like manner? It won’t happen. So the civil discourse is sort of a pie-in-the-sky dream.

But most troubling to me is the conclusion. Here’s the final paragraph in the Manifesto:

Here we stand. Unashamed and assured in our own faith, we reach out to people of all other faiths with love, hope, and humility. With God’s help, we stand ready with you to face the challenges of our time and to work together for a greater human flourishing.

The truth is, there is no such thing as “human flourishing” apart from Christ. Oh, sure, people might be healthy, wealthy, and at ease, during this temporal existence, but without Christ even those things mean nothing. They don’t even insure happiness in the here and now, let alone for eternity. Why would we ever work together with unbelievers for such an ephemeral purpose?

Evangelical Manifesto - Part 3

Short on time today (I hear many sighs of relief whooshing through cyberspace. )

I thought I’d focus today on a part of the Evangelical Manifesto I find refreshing and honest. The second section addresses purpose number two: We must reform our own behavior. Here’s one portion I found insightful:

All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of he surrounding world.

There’s more.

All too often we have set out high, clear statements of the authority of the Bible, but flouted them with lives and lifestyles that are shaped more by our own sinful preferences and by modern fashions and convenience.

And more, but I’ll let you read it on your own.

My thought is, maybe this call to reform should really be a call to repent. And wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had leaders like Jeremiah to stand before God and confess, though he himself wasn’t even in Jerusalem when the sins he repents of were committed. I am not saying the leaders should act like a priest confessing the sins of the people. But that example … I think it is powerful. It says, This sin breaks my heart and I can only weep before God for His mercy over us and beg for revival within the Body of believers because I love the church and I love God and do not want to see this heinous fractious behavior continue.

That’s what I think anyway.

Evangelical Manifesto - Part 2

From what I understand, the release of the Evangelical Manifesto was recent. I think I came across May 7 as the date it went public. In case you’re wondering who’s behind it, here are the people listed on the Steering Committee:

• Timothy George
  Dean, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
• Os Guinness
  Author/Social Critic
• John Huffman
  Pastor, St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, CA
  Chair, Christianity Today International
• Rich Mouw
  President, Fuller Theological Seminary
• Jesse Miranda
  Founder & Director, Miranda Center for Hispanic Leadership, Vanguard University
• David Neff
  Vice President and Editor in Chief, Christianity Today Media Group
• Richard Ohman
  Businessman
• Larry Ross
  President, A. Larry Ross Communications
• Dallas Willard
  Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California
  Author

The introduction to the project is also important because it clarifies motives, and there are three:

An Evangelical Manifesto is an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for …

As an open declaration, An Evangelical Manifesto addresses not only Evangelicals and other Christians but other American citizens and people of all other faiths in America, including those who say they have no faith. It therefore stands as an example of how different faith communities may address each other in public life, without any compromise of their own faith but with a clear commitment to the common good of the societies in which we all live together.

For those who are Evangelicals, the deepest purpose of the Manifesto is a serious call to reform—an urgent challenge to reaffirm Evangelical identity, to reform Evangelical behavior, to reposition Evangelicals in public life, and so rededicate ourselves to the high calling of being Evangelical followers of Jesus Christ.

The Manifesto tackles all three areas, with the identity section first, the call for reform second, and the “let’s all get along” section third. OK, my characterization of the last section is simplistic. I wanted a nutshell way of referring to it, but it probably defies such paring. More accurately, the third section (second in their stated purpose in the intro) is to encourage openness and civility in discussion of faith or non-faith, as the case may be.

Yesterday I posted my initial three reactions to the Manifesto. I hope, at some point, you visitors here at A Christian Worldview of Fiction will take a look at the Manifesto for yourselves. It is beginning to create some stir—there are some 1300 blog posts on the subject already. Until then, here are a few more of my random thoughts on the content.

1. The Manifesto’s “identity definition” flies in the face of post-modern thought that resists propositional truth. There are parts of the document that make me think this is purposeful.

2. While I applaud much of what the Manifesto intends, I see areas that I wish were … more accurate, more Biblical.

And speaking of the Bible, one of the weak points is the watered-down statement of belief about the Bible. From the Manifesto itself, not the summary version (which is even weaker):

Fourth, we believe that Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired Word, make the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice.

Compare that to the statement about the Bible from the National Association of Evangelicals:

I. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

Or how about this statement from my church, First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton:

The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.

Yes, the Manifesto states, in its round-about way, that the Bible is inspired and that it is authoritative. One could suppose that it implies the Bible is without error. But why the ambiguous language on such a pivotal point?

I mention this because I read one blog post in which the writer praises the Manifesto as needed since from his church experience he had not received clear teaching on “these seven foundational points,” referring to the beliefs the Manifesto enumerates as part of the evangelical identity.

Granted, the Steering Committee probably wanted to choose wording that would allow believers with different shades of understanding to agree, but isn’t that what started the slippery slide away from a clear understanding of evangelical—and more importantly of Christian (you knew I’d throw this in one more time, didn’t you? )—in the first place?

OK, this post is much too long, and I have more to say on the subject. As always, I’m interested in your reaction, either to what I’ve spouted or to the original document that brought these ideas bubbling to the surface.

The Evanelical Manifesto - Part 1

Discussion is heating up about the recently released Evangelical Manifesto, a document put together by a number of, uh, Evangelical leaders, I suppose. I don’t recognize all the names listed on the list Steering Committee. Notably absent were scholars from some of the more prominent seminaries. Notably present were people connected with Christianity Today.

Interestingly, one key motivation behind this manifesto seems to be the idea that the term “evangelical” has been hijacked. The people constructing the manifesto then are aiming to clarify the definition.

Why interesting? Because I’ve said much the same thing about the word Christian. So here’s my first reaction to the Evangelical Manifesto. Why put forth all this effort to redefine a term that is nowhere in the Bible used to identify followers of Jesus? The tag, and others like it—Protestant for instance, and denominational names—have been created by people to label differences. All the while, the label that should identify our unity—Christian—has been left to absorb whomsoever wishes, illustrated most recently by the effort of Mormons to be included as just another Christian denomination.

The result of this neglect to redefine Christian is serious, I believe. An effort was made perhaps thirty years ago to clarify rather than redefine the term, so people began speaking about being “born-again Christians.” One commenter noted that the phrase is actually redundant—like saying, I’m a Christian Christian. But it would seem such a clarification is needed because so many people who don’t share a Biblical worldview were nevertheless riding the coattail of the term.

I guess I’ve given a second reaction to the Evangelical Manifesto—surprise at those included and those not included in writing such a serious document. How can this treatise be take seriously if the main players proclaiming Evangelical theology are left out of the process?

A third reaction. I understand the desire to distance Christianity from extremist groups. I hate the fact that there are undoubtedly numbers of non-Christians watching the news about the fundamentalist, polygamist Mormon sect, and those non-Christians think this is another arm of Christianity. Or they hear health and wealth preaching and label all Christians as pie-in-the-sky, greedy fools. Or they hear about child-abusing or sexually deviant pastors or priests, and they brand all Christians as hypocrites. In light of this mischaracterization, I think the Steering Committee behind the Evangelical Manifesto is trying to do something helpful. If nothing else, they are drawing attention to the fact that we are not all alike.

What I don’t understand is the need to divide evangelicals from other Christians. As the Manifesto itself points out, there are many points of denominational difference among evangelicals, but there are key points of agreement. Isn’t that true of all Christians? And here, I am using the term Christians in its restrictive sense, the way I defined it in my recent post on Christian Worldview:

But the key is, those externals don’t define me as a Christian. My relationship with God does—a relationship I enjoy solely because Jesus Christ willingly took my just due, swapping in His righteousness instead.

That’s who any Christian is, and it colors how we see Truth.

The fact is, some “Christian” churches no longer believe in the atoning death of Jesus because they no longer believe Mankind is under judgment due to original sin. Instead, Jesus is someone to copy because of his teaching, his exemplary life, his inspiring acts of kindness. Hogwash.

I’m not saying Jesus’s life was not exemplary or his teaching truth-filled, but these are not the things that set Him apart from Gandhi or Confucius or the Dalai Lama.

As far as I’m concerned, before we have any need whatsoever to redefine “evangelical,” we must first reclaim Christian—the word the Bible uses to identify believers, saints, individual members of the body of Christ.

Great Writing

I don’t know how to make the step from good writer to great. There’s an intangible quality to art that separates good from excellent and I yearn to discover it and apply it. I’m sure there’s a lot to be said for practice and dogged determination, but there’s also a magic that makes some writing sparkle. Where can I get me some of that pixie dust?

Recently agent Rachelle Gardner, in her blog, Rants & Ramblings, turned the tables and invited her readers to rant about the publishing industry, and quite a number of us did. Towards the end, however, thoughtful commenter Patty made the statement I quoted above.

I agree about the intangible quality, the “something” that makes good writing better and better writing great. Can it be captured? Isn’t that what all of us writers aspiring to publication would like to believe? I know I’ve been there. Just give me the five secrets, and I’ll work to get them right. And when I submit, if some editor could just please tell me which of the five I haven’t yet mastered.

The thing is, the more I tried to adhere to the five or ten or twenty-five secrets/rules/principles of writing good fiction, the more I saw my writing morph into blandness. And what did the editors want? Something fresh. Unique. Original. They want a story with a high concept. They want characters with depth. They want stories that hook you early and don’t let you go.

But great? If Patty really means great, which I have no reason to doubt, I don’t know that a killer premise, wonderful characters, and a page-turner plot adds up to great. Probably sale-able. Why, maybe even a best-seller. But great?

I think great writing takes what few Christian novelists talk about—time. Not just time coming up with a story. I actually think that can happen fairly quickly. I’m talking about time to craft a story, looking at the sentence structure and word choice as well as the character development and plot structure.

Mind you, I’m not saying there aren’t writers doing this. I can think of several off the top of my head. But I don’t think very many are talking about it. I suggest a good bit of our writing instruction is geared toward beginners and perhaps intermediates. I went to a particular conference some time ago and noticed that for the “advanced” and “professional” tracks, the topics were about marketing, promotion, spiritual substance. All good, but no craft. As if we in Christian fiction are content with average, not great.

Maybe if more of us asked the question Patty asked …

A Christian Worldview Revisited

Last Friday’s post, The Need for Christian Worldview SF/Fantasy, generated some great discussion.

I especially liked J’s comment:

So, a Christian worldview in writing is essential to understanding our universe.

I think that’s true. But what do we mean by this worldview term? Some people may be yawning right about now, thinking that we’ve been around this block more than once. Undoubtedly so. I defined the term, as I understand it, when I first started this blog. And just this past year, J. Mark Bertrand and I discussed the subject in conjunction with his book Rethinking Worldview.

But maybe this is one of those subjects that can never be discussed enough. I mean, we’re talking about the basic framework upon which all the rest of our beliefs hang. On top of that, the culture in which we live is racing further and further from a Christian worldview, so it seems to me that this discussion should be ongoing.

I ran across an event recorded in the Gospel of Luke that made me realize Jesus’s followers when He walked on earth faced some of the same issues Christians today face. I’m thinking here of our need to separate the trappings of cultural Christianity from an actual Christian worldview.

Too often people, both Christians and non-Christians, have this external do’s-and-don’t list associated with Christianity. Case in point: when I mentioned in the newspaper office that I would be attending a Christian writers’ conference, one editor immediately responded to the effect that they better start watching their language. Clearly, to him Christian meant something about being offended at bad language.

But back to the Biblical example. Jesus sent out seventy of his followers to preach, heal, cast out demons. Told them to go all over. Told them to take no money, food, change of clothes, nothing. Told them to stay with the first home they came across in a city. AND told them to eat whatever was set before them.

Why this last? It dawned on me, some of those seventy might have been offended if they knew they were eating food that didn’t adhere to Jewish dietary laws. So Jesus told them, essentially, don’t ask. Don’t research the matter. Take what they give you and don’t worry about whether or not the food passes “kosher” requirements.

On the other hand, Jesus also told the seventy to shake the dust from their feet on their way out of any city that didn’t accept them.

The point is, What divided the seventy from those showered with dust was not to be a matter of food.

Soon after recounting this event, Luke chronicles a parable Jesus told, one we commonly refer to as the Good Samaritan. Most noticeable to me as I read it was that the priest and the Levite who did not help the mugging victim were most likely concerned with their own safety and/or their own ceremonial purity. They well might have been doing what Jesus told the seventy NOT to do—ducking out of relationship for fear of breaking a Jewish law.

It strikes me, then, that we Christians of the twenty-first century must not accept a definition that marginalizes what we believe. A Christian is NOT defined as a person who reads the Bible every day, doesn’t drink, cuss, snort, and who shows up at church at least once a week. Mind you, that actually does describe me, so I am not advocating their opposites.

But the key is, those externals don’t define me as a Christian. My relationship with God does—a relationship I enjoy solely because Jesus Christ willingly took my just due, swapping in His righteousness instead.

That’s who any Christian is, and it colors how we see Truth.