Fellow blogger, SoCal resident, and Christianity Today film reviewer Brett McCracken, launches his fascinating new book Hipster Christianity next week. The book explores trends, both cultural and religious, that have shaped an emerging new demographic of believer. Brett analyzes the Christian hipster movement with his typical wit, wonkishness, and theological sensibilities. Next Monday, I’ll be posting my recent interview with Brett and giving away two signed copies of his new book. So please check back in for that. And for a leg up on the convo, check out Brett’s Hipster Christianity website to find out if you are, in fact, a Christian hipster.

The response to novelist Eric Wilson’s departure from the CBA and two posts of mine highlighting Eric’s statements (Should “Profit” Be the Bottom Line for Christian Publishers? and Eric Wilson’s Open Letter to Readers, Writers, and Publishers of Christian Fiction), have spawned a lot of discussion. Of the ensuing posts, the one that has most intrigued me is Becky Miller’s So Tired of the SAME Arguments. (By the way, Becky and I are friends and we argue talk about this often, proving that people can disagree without rancor and disunity. Of course, that’s no guarantee she won’t strangle me the next time we see each other.) Anyway, the comments on Becky’s post range from compelling, to provocative, to embarrassing, to vapid. It’s a great representative slice of the pie. Either way, this is not an issue that’s going away, and I’m glad.

And, on a lighter note, I recently completed a project for my grandson Theo — a Lord of the Rings Cabinet. I had salvaged the old wardrobe about six months ago and eventually decided to build some shelves into it and duplicate some designs from the Peter Jackson trilogy. On the face are some elven symbols, inside a Star of Elendil, Frodo’s Orc sword, Sting, and some pillars from the Mines of Moria grace the sides. If you’re interested, you can see all the pics HERE.

Have a great weekend, all!

{ 2 comments }

Believers are fond of saying that “Christianity is  not about ‘religion,’ it’s about ‘relationship.’” Nowadays, however, that adage has been tweaked to read, “Christianity is not about ‘theology,’ it’s about ‘relationship.’”

But is a right relationship with God distinct from right theology? Even more so, can right theology be antithetical to a right relationship with God?

Apparently, some think so. Take for instance the popular author, Donald Miller. Recently, Miller addressed this issue in a post entitled Having Right Theology Does Not Mean You Know God.

Christian conversion is relational. It is not theological or intellectual any more than marriage is theological or intellectual. In other words, a child could become a Christian if they had a mysterious encounter with Jesus, and a simple thinker could become a Christian if they had a mysterious encounter with Christ, and even a person who was a Muslim or a Buddhist could become a Christian if they had a mysterious relational encounter with Christ. This is the only answer at which I could arrive that matched the reality in which we live, the complexity of scripture, and the mysterious invitation offered to us by Jesus.

I hear the masses saying, “But no! A person cannot believe in multiple Gods and be a Christian.” Let me counter with some questions:

Can a person have bad theology and be a Christian?

Has your theology ever been corrected, and were you really a Christian before?

Is your theology all worked out now so you have no more reason to study, and if not, are you a Christian?

If you believe a person’s theology has to be right to be qualified for Christian conversion, then you are saying a person comes to know God, in part, because he has right ideas, and I respectfully disagree. Do I think right theology is important? Absolutely, but I do not believe it has any agency to convert anymore than directions to the doctor’s office has the power to heal.

Miller makes some great points. Right theology doesn’t save people– Jesus does. And as important as having right theology is, none of us ever perfectly has it (at least, not in this life). We are constantly learning, growing, experiencing, and getting to know God better. Furthermore, we are warned in Scripture that having all our doctrinal ducks in a row can become an issue of pride, rather than life (see: Pharisees). So, yes, having right theology does not mean you’re in right relationship with God.

But several false assumptions are made by Miller along the way, assumptions that can be just as deadly as the religious arrogance he warns against. He writes,

You might be getting upset by this. You might think I am saying truth should be thrown out, that theology doesn’t matter. But this is not what I’m saying at all. What I’m intending to illustrate is our drive to define God with a mathematical theology has become a false God rather than an arrow that points to the real God. Theology can become an idol, but it is more useful as guardrails on a road to the true God. Theology is very important, but it is not God, and knowing facts about God is not the same as knowing God.

I find several things potentially problematic with Miller’s approach. One is the (subtle) portrayal of theology as being antithetical to a right relationship with God, as if the two cannot coexist. Yes, “theology can become an idol.” But so can anything God uses! Of course, “knowing facts about God is not the same as knowing God.” However, this does not mean that knowing facts about God cannot assist us in knowing God. The Bible teaches that God’s Word brings light and life, that Truth revives the soul. Sure, some doctrines and traditions have been codified to death. Nevertheless, it is not right theology that hinders a right relationship with God. It is a wrong approach to right theology that hinders a right relationship with God. That distinction is very important.

Secondly, how do we know what a “right relationship with God” is if not by “right theology”? Think of it this way: a right relationship with God looks a certain way. Well, how do we know what it should look like? For one thing, we need to know what kind of God we are having a relationship with. Theology tells us what God is like. Furthermore, people in a right relationship with God should act a certain way. And how do we determine the right conduct of those in relationship with God? Answer: Through specific doctrinal, theological parameters. If God is a bloodthirsty, amoral entity then a “right relationship” with him would probably involve human sacrifice and primitive behavior. But He’s not. How do we know this? Through right theology. My point: A “right relationship with God” is defined — even kindled! — by “right theology.”

Finally, by analogizing theology in terms of “guardrails” on the road to God, Miller potentially minimizes its importance, portraying theology less as Law and more as Guideline. Frankly, this is consistent with many post-evangelicals. By portraying theology as a set of “guidelines” we are free to adjust the parameters to suit our own liking. In fact, many postmoderns completely eliminate the guardrails altogether! Which is why some post-evangelicals and emergents inevitably become Universalists, believing everyone goes to heaven. On the contrary, Scripture draws clear theological lines regarding most issues, calls us to adhere to “sound doctrine,” and warns against those who recalibrate the Truth. Right theology has clear boundaries rather than nebulous or negotiable “guidelines”; it defines the road rather than just serving as existential “bumpers.”

Yes, we should emphasize relationship with God over denominational affiliations and creeds. Donald Miller is correct: head knowledge does not save. But in our attempt to get people into relationship with God, let’s be careful not to minimize “right theology.” In fact, it may not be possible to have a “right relationship with God” without it.

{ 11 comments }

Not long ago, I was contacted by an unpublished author who was looking for a crit partner. They had acquired my addy from a mutual friend and was wondering if I’d be interested. I was flattered. Really. Nevertheless, I emailed this response:

Thanks for the consideration. I’ve kind of given up the crit partner thing, mainly because of my own schedule and perfectionist tendencies. When I’m not working (which is full-time), I’m writing or editing. I’ve found that I tend to overwork so many things — nit-pick, second-guess, obsess over detail — to the point that critting just takes far too much time and is often frustrating for whomever happens to be on the receiving end. My apologies, but I’ll have to pass on the offer.

Okay, so I’m anal retentive. When it comes to critiques, I am just too hard on myself and others…

And I think this is a good thing.

Maybe that’s why me and critique groups don’t always get along. You see, many of the online critique groups I’ve come in contact with are just way too nice. Perhaps this is what some writers want — they want encouragement, they want to be told their stuff is good, they want to feel they’re on the threshold of publication, they want a pat on the back. The problem is, that’s not what they need.

Flannery O’Connor in Mystery and Manners: Occasional Prose, in a piece entitled “The Nature and Aim of Fiction,” provides some wisdom on what we need in a critique group:

I believe the [writing] teacher’s work is largely negative, that it is largely a matter of saying, “This doesn’t work because …” or “This does work because …” The because is very important. The teacher can help you understand the nature of your medium, and he can guide you in your reading. I don’t believe in classes where students criticize each others manuscripts. Such criticism is generally composed in equal parts of ignorance, flattery, and spite. It’s the blind leading the blind, and it can be dangerous. (emphasis mine)

Two things stand out in this quote in relation to critique groups. One is the nature of the task. O’Connor notes that “the teacher’s work is largely negative.” No, she’s not implying that good critique is intentionally harsh, nor that it should be without encouragement or positive reinforcement, but that critique, by its nature, must be rigorous and address what is wrong with a work. In this sense, the work of a good critique group is largely negative.

Equally insightful is Ms. O’Connor’s suggestion that student-led critiques are unhealthy, “generally composed in equal parts of ignorance, flattery, and spite.” Which is a bit of a problem. Nowadays, most online writing groups are comprised of “students [who] criticize each others manuscripts.”

Clearly, many online critique groups do not seem to meet either of Flannery O’Connor’s specs. Whereas some groups exist primarily to provide support and encouragement (rather than correction and hard critique), other groups suffer because of their make-up (too many students and not enough seasoned authors), resulting in what O’Connor calls “the blind leading the blind.”

Of course, I’m not suggesting that a good critique group is without “support and encouragement” or that it cannot involve “students” swapping advice. The important thing is getting “trained” eyes on our work, receiving hard critiques without swooning, and being willing to absorb and make changes as needed. It is natural to need encouragement and, occasionally, a shoulder to cry on. But ultimately, if we are unwilling to seek honest criticism and unable to weather the toughest scrutiny, we are setting ourselves up for disappointment and potentially capping our artistic growth.

Several years ago, the authors at  Charis Connection were asked if they belonged to a writing group. Of the ten that responded, only a couple spoke favorably of crit groups. At the time, I was indignant. “Of course crit groups are a good thing!” I protested.

Now I’m not so sure.

The question isn’t IF you need critique partners. The question is WHAT KIND of critique partners you really need. How you answer that question may, in the long run, determine a lot about your growth and longevity as a writer.

* * *

Question: Do you agree that there is an inherent danger in being critiqued by unpublished and beginning writers? Do you see the role of a critique group as primarily “negative”? What advice would you give a new writer who is seeking to have her work critiqued?

{ 15 comments }

New Post at Novel Journey

4 comments

I’m up at Novel Journey today with a post about Eric Wilson’s Open Letter to Readers, Writers, and Publishers of Christian Fiction. An excerpt… After nine books and well-over a decade as an author in the Christian Fiction industry, Eric Wilson is throwing in the towel. Why? Is it because he has forsaken the faith? [...]

Read the full article →

Stills from “The Resurrection” Book Trailer

2 comments

We’re in the final stages of assembling the book trailer for my debut novel “The Resurrection.” Should be able to make it public in a few weeks. Below are a few screen stills from the footage. These captures are all in Super 8, a film used by many professionals to replicate age or create a [...]

Read the full article →

Should “Profit” Be the Bottom Line for Christian Publishers?

43 comments

I have followed with interest a series of cyber discussions about the Christian publishing industry that started yesterday. Spearheaded by novelist Eric Wilson in a post entitled Is It Time for Christian Fiction to Die?, the conversation is honest, provocative, informative, and quite civil. One of the positive elements of the discourse is that it [...]

Read the full article →

Build-a-Writer

9 comments

When it comes to talent, nobody has it all. Whether it’s an athlete, artist, or author, no one excels at everything. In fact, excelling at anything may carry its own cost. Last night, we attended a fantastic jazz concert. Jamie Cullum is a phenomenal pianist with oodles of energy and stage presence. He performed for [...]

Read the full article →

Mel Gibson’s “Hypocrisy” Validates His Religion

23 comments

This just in: The man who directed The Passion of the Christ really needs Jesus. It took me a while to actually pay attention to the latest Mel Gibson tirade / scandal / media feeding frenzy. No, it’s not because I’m a Gibson apologist. His abusive, racist rant speaks for itself (especially the uncensored version!). [...]

Read the full article →

How People Decide to (Randomly) Buy a Book

18 comments

I am not an impulsive buyer, and when it comes to book buying, I am very not impulsive. Rarely will I walk into a bookstore and emerge with a book I hadn’t heard of or planned to purchase. And when I do, certain planets must be aligned. But unless you’re familiar with an author or [...]

Read the full article →

Interview with Amy Riley of the INSPY Awards

7 comments

After catching buzz about the new INSPY Awards and being intrigued by its premise, I contacted its founder Amy Riley of My Friend Amy, to ask some questions. Amy is a prolific blogger with reams of cyber-cred. And as it turns out, she is extremely gracious to strangers who request interviews and ask annoying questions. [...]

Read the full article →

Video Shoot for “The Resurrection” Trailer

7 comments

I’ve had a lot of fun putting together the concept for a book trailer for my upcoming novel, “The Resurrection.” Totally jazzed about working with Brian Barnhart. In fact, I posted a pic of Brian’s storyboard at Twit Pic if you care to take a peek. We did our filming for the project yesterday and [...]

Read the full article →

Do “Christian” Awards Limit or Extend the Reach of Christian Novels?

10 comments

A new Christian Award has been announced –  The INSPY Awards — and I must say, I love the logo, the idea behind it, and the blogger who’s launched the campaign. The INSPYs are the brainchild of Amy Riley, of My Friend Amy, creator of the popular Book Blogger Appreciation Week. (In fact, I’ll be [...]

Read the full article →