Dekker writes edgy?

Only by CBA standards. General market Christian readers or rather the audience of Christians CBA doesn't serve would undoubtedly deny this. After all, there are non-affiliated Christian authors in the general market, or "secular" market as CBA likes to call them, writing about Zombies and vampires and the like.

Fighting amongst themselves is more how I see this. But that's just my opinion. I've bigger concerns with CBA that go far beyond whether I can say crap in a novel, or have a character kiss someone below the neck. I'm more interested in knowing why they represent themselves as THE Christian market when this isn't so. They discriminate against most Christian authors based on affiliation and denomination. My work has been approved for distribution to the Christian market by Spring Arbor yet no CBA member bookstore will put it on their shelf. Now that's interesting.

Will said Baptist preacher head on down to the good Father and tell him his Eucharist is for the birds? And likewise, will Father tell the preacher dunking isn't necessary?

It's what being a part of the Body is about, I think. White blood cells can't do what red blood cells can do but they're both critical to living.

A friendly debate should be encouraged. But just as you said that emotions should be left out, then we need to weigh our words before we send them into the vast Interwebs. As we sit there in our computer chairs or wherever, we need to at least consider if we ourselves have removed the emotion from our words because by the looks of some of the things I've read (in this situation and going back several years), it hasn't.

Look at that, I'm still procrastinating and not writing. Sheesh.

I think your right and I think the problem is that Christianity has become a religion of emotion more than thought. I tell the teens in my youth class all the time, something isn't true just because you feel its true, if something is true it is true regardless of anyones feelings about it.

Emotional appeals to the Gospel are fine, but we also have to have rational, logical arguments as well.

I posted my thoughts here because I see this way of thinking among Christians all around me, not just in the writing world.

People are so easily offended these days, it's a national pastime. If one does not agree with a person, they automatically get their feelings hurt. Whatever happened to friendly exchange of ideas where the emotions are left out of it?

You said, "Hmm. While I agree about having the right spirit, I'm just not sure that the charge of it being hurtful means we should stop." I think that says it all right there, Mike. You went on to say that you don't think we should be "rude" and "run over people's feelings" but sometimes our definition of what is rude or hurtful is incorrect. And I think many of us, on the so called "liberal" side of the debate have been incorrect.

I've had a post sitting in my drafts about this very issue. And I fight with myself regularly about whether or not I'll finish writing it and then publish it to my blog. Why? Because frankly, it's just a distraction from what I need to be doing which is working on my novel. So don't be surprised if I don't respond again because, well, I need to go write.

However, arrogance is a pretty hefty charge and one not easily proven. Being critical of something does not automatically indict us as arrogant, or else no one could ever criticize anything. So I'm not too sure I'd want to blanket the critics in that term. Are some critics of conservative Christian fiction arrogant? Probably. Are all? Probably not. Which means some criticism is tolerable.

You said, "when someone tells you that the things you say hurt them, it's time to change how you approach the debate." Hmm. While I agree about having the right spirit, I'm just not sure that the charge of it being hurtful means we should stop. No, I don't mean we should run over people's feelings and be rude. Maybe we do need to change our tone and approach. But at some point, the truth hurts. I think it's more important that we "speak the truth in love" than that we worry about hurting each other. Again, this doesn't condone being stupid and insensitive. But being offended can be as much an indication that truth was told, as that the teller was off-base. So it kinda depends. In this case, I think the criticism about these ultra-conservative guidelines was valid. Yes, people were hurt. But was it all because people were just being rude?

Hey, I appreciate your thoughts, Elaina. Thanks for commenting!

Frankly, I've been one that has said things that have been hurtful about and towards the conservative wing of Christian publishing. At least in the past. I see no problem with debate. I can debate politics all day for instance. But I will refuse to debate with someone who enters the debate with preconceived ideas of who I am and therefore uses words and tactics that do not further and encourage debate but rather tear people apart. I believe the primary problem is that there's a level of arrogance on our side of the issue, Mike. We look at the conservative side and shake our heads at the rules and the things they don't say or won't say or can't say or any other number of issues, all the while we're not seeing past the log sticking out of our own eye.

My primary concern with this whole kerfufel is that when and if a Christian brother or sister tells you (and sometimes over and over again) that they've been hurt by the words you have chosen, it's not okay to ignore that. It's not okay to continue on with the argument with the tactics you're using. At that point, you've become a clanging cymbal. You're no longer heard. If you're looking at basics in communication, I would say that it's a pretty simple idea that it's not YOUR right to tell them what hurts or does not hurt them. That's some pretty arrogant stuff right there to suggest that your statements or words shouldn't hurt someone. The "you" and "your" here is directed just as much at me as it is to anyone who has engaged in this or debates prior.

I would suggest instead, that if this debate comes up at a different time, that the focus be on what the benefits of continuing changes in the world of Christian fiction would be. I can think of a bunch of things I could have said to that woman in the elevator without making her feel like poop that would make a clear, distinct point. In the past, I would have gone for a zinger. I will not deny. And I have had to confess that and frankly, I probably need to seek forgiveness from one person in particular that just came to mind.

The point isn't that debate is bad. But when someone tells you that the things you say hurt them, it's time to change how you approach the debate. My suggestion is to consider for just a bit if there's any way in which the way you present a message is part of the problem. Truth is truth. There is no wiggle room with the truth. Our opinions are our opinions and that's all there is to it. However, the way we approach others makes a huge difference in how we are received.

And frankly, there's a hell of a lot of arrogance on our side of the debate, Mike. A lot of arrogance.

No I don't think that I'd keep Amish and other similar books in a "religion" category. They're fiction, not religion. I'd put them right in there with general fiction, within their genre. I think that Christians and all readers for that matter, have to learn to discern for themselves what novels they want to read. If a Christian wants to read "Amish" or other clean fiction, then they should do the research ahead of time, or go to the bookstore and look for an author that they like, just like everyone else does. A non-believer might stumble upon a Christian fiction novel in the general fiction section, buy, and perhaps be very blessed by it. But they'd never go near the Christian Fic section. Many CBA authors have told me that they are writing fiction to "save souls" and to uplift the saved. So then why keep Christian fiction segregated where mostly Christians will go? To make it easier for Christians to find? What about the unsaved? Whom does the "Christian fiction" section serve? Whom should it be serving? I'll leave that up to the CBA writer to decide.

Fiction is fiction, even Amish fiction and Erotica fiction. Let's take Christian fiction out of its genre, and separate the novels into their sub-genres. Put them together within their various ABA genres, and let the Christian book buyer learn to discern, and let those non-believers who might be blessed by Christian books find them. Adults can discern what they want to read, and if they can't, let them make the effort to learn. That's one resolution to this ongoing issue that we've been talking about at least for the last 7 years, when I wrote my first novel.