My apologies to those who would rather move on, but I am still perplexed by the recent spat that occurred between Ted Dekker and Steeple Hill and its, I guess you’d call it, resolution. For now, it appears both parties have agreed to move on. Which leaves me wondering what the Christian writing community should take from all this. And frankly, whether or not we have the ability to ever openly discuss, much less resolve, the issues that were raised.
Without rehashing all the details, several weeks ago, Dekker publicly criticized Steeple Hill’s conservative guidelines for its Loved Inspired romance line. Many Steeple Hill authors felt slighted and unduly caricatured by the criticism. Dekker apologized to the authors for his insensitivity and approach, deleted some of the posts in question, and Steeple Hill removed the guidelines. Dekker later spoke to the executive editor at Love Inspired Steeple Hill and, after polling his fans, decided to modify the initial post by removing the publisher’s name. I think this is where everything currently stands.
So is the issue resolved? And if so, what was learned?
As much as we Christians cringe at this type of public exchange, I can’t help but feel it is ultimately good for the writing community. Having pastored for over a decade, I’ve seen my share of squabbles and disagreements between Christian brethren – some making the parties bitter, some making them better. Nowhere does the Bible imply that Christians should exist in some type of uninterrupted communal bliss, a sort of “See no evil / Speak no evil” bubble without conflict, misunderstanding, and disagreement. On the contrary, there should be give-and-take. That’s why correction, rebuke, repentance, and ultimately forgiveness are staples of Christian fellowship. Iron sharpens iron, says the prophet, implying that sparks are inevitable.
Despite the potential for conflict, sweeping things under the rug is never good for long-term relationships.
Incidents like this provide unparalleled opportunity for us to grow up, grow closer, and sharpen our collective vision and our witness. However, in my humble opinion, this confrontation, instead of growing us, potentially perpetuates confusion, division, and hurt. It maintains the status quo.
Interestingly enough, Dekker and Steeple Hill represent polar opposites in the Christian publishing industry. While Dekker could be seen as part of a more liberal camp (fiction that is edgy, has less explicit Christian references, allows darker subject matter, and has a broader target audience), Steeple Hill represents a conservative camp (fiction that is clean, has explicit Christian references, and is aimed specifically at conservative women). Is it any wonder then that these two camps grate on each other and, in a way, isn’t that what we need them to do?
This is not meant to validate Dekker’s approach — indeed, his clarification and apology seemed appropriate — but to re-up his initial critique. In other words, we shouldn’t use Dekker’s apology as a way to sidestep the issues he raised. On the same token, Christian authors in the “conservative camp” have similarly valid charges that could be leveled against those in the “edgy camp” (like Dekker and Thomas Nelson, his publisher). Have Dekker’s books (and other edgy / worldview authors’ books) grown increasingly dark, as some say, and at what point can something be marketed as “Christian” without containing explicit Christian language and imagery? Both these critiques – from the right and the left – have legitimacy and should be fair game for the Christian writing community. But is this community capable of such give-and-take? By the looks of this latest exchange, I wonder.
The Shack, and author William Young, have received reams of criticism, including charges of being heretical. Some of that critique is inflammatory and ill-informed. Some of it is not. Yet this is the necessary role of the Christian community – to keep itself in check. Any criticism of a Christian author or publisher can be seen as potentially “tearing down” a brother. Nevertheless, is the correct response then to NEVER publicly question or challenge other Christian authors and publishers? The Christian community, more than anyone, should be different in how we voice and resolve our conflicts. Avoiding conflict, however, is sometimes the un-Christian thing to do.
In 2006, I attended my first ever writer’s conference. The ACFW conference in Dallas was a fun, rather enlightening, experience. On my first full day there, I entered an elevator with a middle-aged lady and, on the way down to breakfast, she said, “Do you believe they’re allowing these types of stories into the CBA?” I did a double-take. “Excuse me,” I said. She proceeded to reference a recent release by a top tier Christian publisher in which a POV character (an antagonist) is a pedophile. She was appalled to see such “darkness” making inroads into Christian publishing. Does she have a point? And, maybe the bigger question — Can we ever discuss her points without someone getting hurt or offended?
Real concerns and disagreements exist between Christian writers. I think Ted Dekker expressed some of them. But, in turn, writers and readers of conservative ilk have similar, legitimate, opinions. Both positions have validity. My concern is that, in pursuing peace, we avoid the necessary conflict, become disingenuous, and consign our gripes to personal emails, closed-door rants, and elevators.
Which is why I blog about them.
If, by resurrecting this issue, I have reopened wounds or appeared to play provocateur, I apologize. But is anyone as befuddled as me by the apparent non-resolution here? Is there really an insurmountable breech between the conservative and liberal wings of the Christian publishing community? Are we quietly defending a “See no evil / Speak no evil” policy that prohibits us from any sort of public criticism and discourse?
Your thoughts?
It would seem the so-called resolution remains at : agree to disagree. For me a lot of this is oxymoronic with wobbly borders. I'm a "conservative" Christian in that I in no way applaud the navel-gazing theology of the "emergent" church. I write non-traditional romance novels, but I read thrillers, mysteries, suspense, some women's fiction and a little romance. To use Ted Dekker's novels as an example here, I loved Adam but didn't like BoneMan's Daughters because of primary characters who were unlikable and without positive character traits. In the novel Adam there were redeeming conclusions to the story but with BD there were none, and though I'm just one very small voice, I mentioned these factors in my reviews of both novels.
(cont.)
I don't know or can't pretend to understand the desire to read the restrictive "cleanliness" of the Steeple Hill line of romance. I admire the discipline of those writers who can create thoughtful and meaningful stories under their guidelines even though they don't appeal to me. However, what I think should be resolved here is this: Christians should write within the parameters of what the Lord sets for them, not those of man. The CBA market is growing, the audiences are slowly stretching, and each author is responsible to God for his work, knowing which lines he is allowed to cross and not criticizing another author for having different boundaries. Being able to express preferences is a given but how criticism is addressed and expressed should be done with care and thoughtful words so the onus of offense doesn't reside with the writer of the criticism for giving an honest opinion.
Nicole, I'm not sure I see this current controversy as reinforcing an "agree to disagree" resolution. Despite the obvious issue of online etiquette (one I honestly think I'm still learning!), I think the issues Dekker raised are still rather taboo among Christian authors in the public square. To me, it's more than just "having different boundaries." If there really is an issue of legalism involved here — which was the initial charge Dekker made — then it should be within the realm of give-and-take for other believers.
The New Testament writers openly resisted legalism, sometimes with harsh language, often indicting individuals. So if a publisher or individual author's "boundaries" appear legalistic, I think it's appropriate for others to point that out. Legalism is not just a personal preference. It is a view of life / religion that is ultimately unbiblical. This was some of the concern regarding the LI guidelines. On the other hand — and this is my point in the post — more conservative Christian readers should be equally able to discuss and criticize issues on the other side of the aisle without being viewed as prudes and legalists — which was part of the problem, at least by implication, in the Dekker / Steeple Hill exchange.
Thanks for your comments!
Bravo, Bravo, Bravo, Mike. You made some fantastic points in this post. I could quote the ones I like best, but I think I'd be quoting the entire post. Could not have said it better myself.
I think that the majority feel this issue is resolved, because Dekker apologized and SH removed their guidelines. Gentle compromise on both parts, very Christian of them. Case closed.
But is it resolved? No. I doubt the argument and other similar arguments will ever be resolved, mostly because of fear and immaturity.
The inability to criticize and discern will not change until mainstream Christianity and ultimately its output – music, books etc. grows up. IMO, mainstream Christianity, is childish, insecure, and lacking deep knowledge-much like the secular world they claim to shun. The majority of Christians aren't really being taught the deeper truths, and remain "baby" Christians most of their lives-insecure in their faith, afraid to expose themselves to the darker side of life. To me, it's not biblical to shut yourself away like that. If I had a choice, I'd rather be sitting at the edge of hell telling people about Jesus, than sitting in church listening to the same five point topical "teaching," I heard this same time last year when membership was down. But I'm the weirdo in the crowd… as we know.
The real issue lies mainly with the men in the pulpit. When they start growing the congregation they have, instead of looking to grow their membership, their congregation will hopefully mature and be able to deal better with the ugly side of life, and then perhaps Christian publishing will change. But I wouldn't put my money on it.
IMO, instead of degrees on how "edgy" Christian books should or shouldn't become, I think we should just do away with the Christian fiction genre entirely. Remove the Christian fiction bookshelf from the Religion section of bookstores. Integrate all fiction, secular and Christian. Stop preaching to the choir, so to speak. The internet is a great cyber word-of-mouth tool. I'm sure that those who want to read SH-type books will be able to find authors that they like, and ditto for the "edgy" crowd.
I know that most people don't agree with me, and that's fine. My fiction isn't "Christian fiction," it's fiction written by a Christian. That's why unlike many authors in the CBA community who are afraid of repercussions, I can speak these hard truths, and not worry about whether a CBA author, editor, or agent doesn't like what I say. I'm not going to be pitching my work to them. Oh, but knowing me, I'd probably say it anyway, lol…:-) I'm really not afraid of intellectual discussions, even disagreements. To me, that only reinforces what I have already learned, and given me more confidence to speak about it openly and be challenged.
BTW, when we met that year ACFW in Dallas, I remember you had a cold, and we had a very interesting and serious discussion about this very thing. Some issues never get resolved, huh?
Suzan, I think you made some over the top generalizations, but, hey, I didn't find them offensive. 😉 I think the majority of CF should be integrated into the mainstream shelving, but I'd keep the Amish (and the like) fiction in the "religion" category. Unlike you, I think CBA fiction is a good idea even with its imperfections simply because as a very general rule, some of its publishers offer "clean" or "safe" fiction for those people who want to be entertained in that matter, and writers can offer their spiritual inclinations without disguising their views.
Mike, there's no argument that some CBA fiction sports legalism as in the SH requirements regarding words. However, I think it's in the minority now. A form of legalism can be found in ABA requirements on the opposite side of the fence. Certain CBA authors who used to write in that market (i.e. Francine Rivers, Brandilyn Collins) can testify to this.
Your point about give and take and being able to discuss the differences among writers and readers is excellent and without controversy in nature.
Yeah, Nicole, maybe I generalized, but I really did use my own personal experiences and I see what I see. The scale tips way over into the eternal baby Christian realm, I'm distressed to say.
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.
On one hand, I agree with you. Healthy debate is always good. But the key word is healthy. The problem I see is that people have been hurt not by disagreement itself but by the words used and lobbed against those who disagree. It's possible to debate an issue without using harsh terms, calling people judgmental, etc.
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.
[Suzan, as a side note: "The scale tips way over into the eternal baby Christian realm, I'm distressed to say." I've experienced this from the standpoint of those who simply refuse to go deeper rather than getting fluff from the pulpit of several churches. The people I know and associate with passionately desire to get as deep as they can with Jesus.]
Good points for all of us to remember, Elaina.
Elaina, I appreciate your thoughts. I think there's some validity to the charge of arrogance. The majority of the public criticism seems to come from the liberal, rather than the conservative wing. Why is this? It could be that our position makes us feel more cultured, mature, or superior than those we're criticizing. After all, framing someone as a Pharisee conversely implies we are "enlightened."
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!
Yes, people were hurt by the rude things that were said. I'll go back to my point. There's a way to debate these issues and speak the truth without hurting someone.
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.
Funny, I'm not liberal at all. I'm more Libertarian than anything else and dare I say, I follow Reformed Theology. So I don't think it's just liberals who argue this point.
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?
Suzan, I agree wholeheartedly that being offended is a national pastime. I am so sick of political correctness it's not even funny. And a friendly exchange of ideas is important. The problem is that it wasn't friendly — at least some people weren't. And it got very personal.
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.
Suzan I am so offended by your statements, just joking.
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.
It's like the Fundamentalist Baptist preacher picking on the Catholics down the road with their rosaries and incense.
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.
Great analogy, Michelle! So I don't need to apologize for being one of those nasty white blood cells…
Dekker and Steeple Hill are in the same camp. His publisher is a fee-paying CBA member publisher too. Dekker of Thomas Nelson fame and Steeple Hill both serve CBA's core market audience of evangelicals.
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.
The problem is when different groups try to get the opposite to conform with themselves. For example, Ted Dekker seems to want Steeple Hill to conform with his style of writing. I think that God has called us to different ways of looking at things. The people at Steeple Hill feel the need to write very, very clean books that appeal to Christian women as far as I can tell. Ted Dekker, on the other hand, has been called to write books that reach out more to mainstream audiences and so aren’t as explicitly Christian. Whether or not one group or the other goes too far isn’t the point; the important thing is that we focus on conforming to Christ, not conforming to each other. Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians, where he tells his readers that they shouldn’t be divided over whether to follow him or Apollos and instead focus on Christ.