Mike Duran's Blog, page 78

Top Ten Authors I'd Love to Meet

Commenter Joy Tamsin David recently posted her Top Ten Authors I'd Love to Meet. It's part of a meme that made the rounds this week and it got me thinking about writers I'd love to chat with / debate / steal ideas from. The following folks intrigue me for various reasons, most because of their craft, some because of their life / publishing experiences, many for the complexity of their beliefs. I have included only living authors (mainly because speaking to Howard Lovecraft seems kinda creepy). If you don't find yourself listed here, my apologies. I would still love to sit down with you, drink coffee, talk, laugh, and steal your ideas.

RAY BRADBURY — Author of  The Martian Chronicles, Fahrenheit 451 and Something Wicked This Way Comes. Perhaps more than any other writer, Bradbury inspired me to want to write.

ANNIE DILLARD — Author of Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and The Writing Life. For demonstrating what creative non-fiction can be. Have I ever really stopped thinking about For the Time Being?

DEAN KOONTZ — Author of Watchers, Midnight, and Odd Thomas. Koontz's philosophical / religious / scientific noodling, and his sense of humor, are refreshing. Dear Dean, What's the secret to writing five books a year?

ALAN MOORE — Author of Watchmen and V is For Vendetta. Moore is a known Neopagan, occultist, ceremonial magician, and anarchist who worships a snake god named Glycon. Oh, and he doesn't cut his hair.

TOSCA LEE — Author of Demon: A Memoir and Havah. Lee's a wordsmith, her characters are realistic, and she's not afraid to trod sacred / controversial ground. And, yes, she's got panache.

STEPHEN KING — Author of The Shining, the Stand, and Salem's Lot. Any writer who wouldn't want to meet King should rethink their calling.

FREDERICK BUECHNER — Author of Wishful Thinking, Brenden: A Novel, and A Room Called Remember. Buechner is a contemplative, so meeting at Starbucks would be out of the question. Godric remains one of my all-time favorite books.

T.L. HINES — Author of Waking Lazarus, Faces in the Fire, and The Falling Away. I'm as intrigued by Hine's life-experience as a cancer survivor as I am his publishing arc and his integration of faith and fiction. Plus, any author that uses his initials for his published name gets points.

JOYCE CAROL OATES — Author of over 50 novels, National Book Award winner, and Pulitzer nominee. For literary depth, breadth, and versatility. Is there anything the Grande Dame of the New Gothic can't write? She scares me… in a good way.

NEIL GAIMAN — Author of Neverwhere and American Gods. Now a pop cultural icon, on the cutting edge of speculative fiction. I'm fascinated by Lewis and Chesterton's early influence upon Gaiman, but even more fascinated by why he lives in Minnesota.

So there you have it! What authors would you like to meet and why? Have a great weekend!

 

The Danger of "Inspirational" Fiction

The term "Inspirational Fiction" has become synonymous  with much of what is labeled Christian fiction.

Hopeful
Uplifting
Positive
Wholesome

These are words commonly associated with the genre. But does "Inspiration" rightly portray the essence of the Christian Gospel?

At the outset of our current recession, one columnist noted that Christian fiction thrives during economic crisis:

Local Christian publishers who launched or expanded their fiction lines in recent years are enjoying the fruits of their labors thanks to an unlikely source — the flagging economy.

While sales of Christian nonfiction have stalled during the recent economic crisis, sales of Christian fiction remain strong.

Karen Ball, executive editor at Southern Baptist-owned B&H Publishing Group [Ball is no longer with B&H] , said that people are looking for a way to escape from the bad news of layoffs and plummeting stocks. "When reality gets ugly, fiction takes off," she said.

Along with escape, Christian novels specialize in Christian hope.

"There's some wonderful secular fiction out there, but it's not offering any hope," Ball said. "If anything it's discouraging. In Christian fiction, there's hope in the midst of trouble." (Emphasis mine)

This portrayal of Christian fiction as an agent of hope  is common, and I think it captures the essence of what many readers expect from the genre. They want something uplifting, inspirational, encouraging, and/or ultimately optimistic.

So is this why the genre exists, to evoke or inspire hope in those who despair? Is this why readers seek out Christian fiction, to recharge their Inspirational battery? If so, I think that's a problem. Let me offer three reasons why the term Inspirational Fiction can be dangerous for both writers and readers.

LITERARY PREDICTABILITY: If readers buy Christian fiction primarily to feel good and extract hope, then no matter how bleak a storyline, they should always expect a somewhat uplifting resolution. This is a common charge against Christian fiction. Not only does this expectation hurt the genre (i.e., people know what to expect), it also hamstrings Christian fiction writers into more predictable plot-lines. Things have to work out, or else it's not… inspirational.

SUPERFICIALITY: Another problem with defining Christian fiction in terms of Inspiration is that it potentially glosses over the "darker" elements of life and faith (i.e., that humans are depraved, do depraved things, reject God, and can ultimately spend eternity in hell) and opts for convenience (happy ending) rather than complexity. Stories that move predictably toward uplifting resolutions often sacrifice deeper issues (and biblical clarity) for superficial resolutions.

AN INCOMPLETE GOSPEL: It's been said, The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable. Before the Gospel "frees," it makes us "miserable."  While the Holy Spirit infuses God's children with love, joy, and peace, He also convicts world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Jn. 16:8). The Gospel damns before it releases. Much Inspirational Fiction misses this "miserable" part of the Gospel. It conditions us to see God as The Fixer and our stories as Pep Pills for troubled times. The ultimate message is, "Come to Jesus and everything will work out." But is that the essence of the Gospel?

This last point is the most important, and potentially the most charged. Does Inspirational Fiction (or, at least, our expectations of it) trivialize the Gospel, turn it into a bandaid for all our ills? Does the genre substitute theological depth for feel-good fluff? I think it can. Sadly, many Christians have replaced theological "steak and eggs" with a Chicken Soup for the Soul mentality. And Inspirational Fiction potentially caters to that mentality.

Yes. The Gospel offers inspiration and hope. It is good news! But real biblical hope is based on a sense of hopelessness, not humanistic, formulaic, emotional quick-fixes. We can't save ourselves, we need a Savior. And following Him means carrying our cross along a very narrow road. That road is often rocky, strewn with unpredictability and hardship. Multitudes have died seeing their hopes and promises left unfulfilled.

But does Inspirational Fiction accurately capture that reality?

Are Fictional Tastes Shaped by Societal Trends?

When choosing your next read, how often have you dismissed something on the grounds that you were not in the mood?

Not in the mood for comedy.
Not in the mood for horror.
Not in the mood for romance.
Not in the mood for fantasy.

So what puts you in the mood for something? Better yet, as a writer, is there a way to tell what readers are in the mood for?

Perhaps it's in the realm of chemistry, an intangible that we are not permitted to understand. Maybe it has to do with temperament, upbringing, IQ, or a combination of all of the above.

And maybe it has to do with the shape of society.

That was the suggestion floated by author / editor Ron Benrey in a recent NovelRocket post. In Whither Goest the Christian Cozy? he writes,

…there's no doubt that the market for cozies does fluctuate. Some publishing gurus say that the shifting demand for cozy mysteries is a barometer of societal angst. Before you laugh, consider their argument: Cozies apparently do well in the aftermath of wars, during economic upheavals, and in times of widespread uncertainty. That's when readers seek out novels that show good triumphing over evil, honor traditional values, and have tidy endings in which the world is put right again.

If this nifty theory is true, 2011 is ripe for a cozy renaissance. (emphasis mine)

It's hard to dispute that the shape of society influences our reading habits. Societal angst, war, natural disaster, economic hardship, and political upheaval can all taint our literary tastes. But is that reality enough to suggest that the climate is ever "ripe" for any one genre?

Are zombies more popular during times of peace?
Are superheroes more popular during war?
Are romantic comedies more popular during recession?

And should that matter to what we write?

Stephen King is his expose of the Horror genre entitled Danse Macabre suggests

Horror movies and horror novels have always been popular, but every ten or twenty years they seem to enjoy a cycle of increased popularity and visibility. These periods almost always seem to coincide with periods of fairly serious economic and/or political strain, and the books and films seem to reflect those free-floating anxieties (for want of a better term) which accompany such serious but not mortal dislocations. They have done less well in periods when the American people have been faced with outright examples of horror in their own lives. (emphasis mine)

Donnie Darko is now a cult classic, but seems to bear out King's assertion. It's a great little film, usually shelved under Horror or Sci-fi. Well, the movie flopped in the U.S. Its problem was not technical (poor craft) as much as societal (bad timing). Donnie Darko was released just after 9/11.

And the last thing Americans wanted to watch after 9/11 was Horror.

Okay. Maybe there is some truth to this idea of societal trends shaping fictional tastes. Maybe the economy, war, political strife, and natural disaster, put us in the mood for one genre and not another. Then again, even a terrorist attack did not stop soap opera viewers from demanding their shows NOT be preempted for Breaking News.

Some genres will remain popular no matter how bad things get.

Or will they?

So as a writer, is it possible to seize upon societal trends, to chart a course based on malaise, poverty, scandal, or impending apocalypse, to hold your finger to the air and gauge the literary winds? And as a reader, do societal conditions actively shape your reading habits?

Doubt, Inc.

Doubt is becoming a franchise for some Christians. Books like O Me of Little Faith,  Know Doubt, The Myth of Certainty, and Faith at the Edge: A Book for Doubters all capitalize on postmodern believers' perpetual "crises of faith."

As if uncertainty is the only thing one can be certain of.

Joining that movement is Frank Schaeffer, son of the iconic Christian theologian / philosopher / apologist Francis Schaeffer. Apparently Frank has been "victimized" by those narrow-minded, intolerant Fundies. Speaking at the recent Wild Goose Festival, a sort of Woodstock for Religious Leftists, Schaeffer celebrated his agnosticism with others of like (open) mind.

In The Wild Goose Revival for Doubters and Jesus Victims (Like Me), Schaeffer describes the wonderfully "tolerant" vibe at the festival:

We understood each other, understood why it was a big deal that some of us were gay, open and happy in spite of everything, understood why some of us still wanted to follow Jesus, even though the world we came from — far right, hate-and-fear-driven wacko religion — had done its best to turn Jesus into Attila the Hun and/or Michele Bachmann.

Hate and fear? Wacko religion? Jesus the Hun? Can't you just feel the love pouring out of the Goose? Schaeffer concludes with this prediction and an appeal:

Wild Goose Festival is going to grow into the largest, best run, most dynamic religious happening in the U.S. There are lots of smart spiritually hungry people with their eyes open…

Next year, be there. And if you're an atheist, agnostic, whatever, you'll like it too because you'll be amongst those rare sort of religious people who will admit that we're all in the same boat and that certainty is a killer and humility is all that works, if, that is, you want to live and let live instead of using ideas as weapons.

I'm particularly struck by Schaeffer's conviction that "certainty is a killer." I mean, that's a dangerous idea. If he is too certain about his position –

"I am certain that certainty kills!"

 

– wouldn't that make him what he despises — an absolutist? And if he doubts it, why in the world should I believe him?

So do all "Jesus victims" think like this?

It makes me wonder whether or not the folks at Doubt, Inc. have thought this through. Maybe it is not so much doubt they espouse, but doubt in traditional organized religion. Maybe it is not so much certainty they eschew, but certainty in specific beliefs. Maybe it is not so much intolerance they renounce, but intolerance of their ecumenism.

Don't be mistaken. Schaeffer is not asking you to believe nothing. He wants you to believe something like this:

1.) It is not possible to express religious certainty without alienating someone.

2.) Traditional orthodox Christianity demands and requires a degree of religious certainty

3.) Therefore, one cannot embrace traditional orthodox Christianity without a.) expressing religious certainty and b.) alienating someone

Which is why Doubt, Inc. frowns upon the "far right, hate-and-fear-driven wacko religion" of… mainstream America.

Hey, I'm all for embracing atheists and agnostics, civil debate, and diversity culture. Problem is, the minute you say, "The Bible is God's Word" or "There is one God" or "Jesus is the only way to God" or "Jesus is God" — you know, the stuff associated with the "far right, hate-and-fear-driven wacko religion" of mainstream America — you will potentially offend and alienate someone.

The moment you are certain about any religious convictions, someone, somewhere, will get miffed.

Unless, of course, you are only certain that "certainty kills." In which case, may I introduce you to Doubt, Inc.

Soul Mates — Is It Biblical?

Some family and friends have had this ongoing, albeit playful, discussion about the concept of "soul mates." Is this rooted in biblical concepts or has it been hijacked by romantics of our age? We've arrived at three possible answers:

1.) The concept of "soul mates" is essentially biblical. Eve was made specifically for Adam, brought to him, and fit perfectly with him. Likewise, God has created someone who fits perfectly with you and works out your destiny to bring you together.

2.) The concept of "soul mates" is unbiblical. Relationships are entirely random and utilitarian. Any number of people could make "the perfect spouse."

3.) "Soul mates" are possible, but not guaranteed; they are contingent upon factors both in and outside your control. Relationships have the potential to become a "perfect fit," but are conditioned by number of factors, both human and divine.

What do you think? Is there another category we are missing?

View This Poll
online surveys

Christian Fiction's "Non-Erogenous Zone"

It used to be said that the only acceptable form of sex in Christian fiction was that which occurred within marriage. But apparently even sex between a husband and wife is… edgy.

Catherine Richmond's Spring for Susanna, a historical romance published by Thomas Nelson, has been getting some great reviews. And then there are Amazon reviewers like these who had an issue with the novel's portrayal of sex:

J.Gossert: "There are some sexual references like nothing I have ever experienced in a 'Christian' novel before. Nothing overt or anything that made me uncomfortable – just different from anything I've read before. That said, I'm not sure this is a book for younger girls."

F. Murrell: "Also as a note to parents – if you don't want your young girls reading about sex after marriage then don't let them read this book. If you want them to know what goes on between a married couple than this book will be fine. I was rather surprised about the descriptiveness of this area of marriage. Most Christian fiction tends to lean on the prudish side. This book does not."

momof2: "…there was a lot of sexual references. Nothing inappropriate, but I wouldn't feel free recommending the book to a friend who was single."

leftyjewel: "I could have overlooked [the novel's weaknesses] had it not been for the sexual descriptions throughout the book. I found them to be inappropriate for The Christian fiction market. I choose to read Christian fiction because I want to read a satisfying love story with wholesome values. Many will probably not find anything wrong with this book; however I would not recommend it for young unmarried women. We have enough explicit detail in the secular market."

Frankly, I'm not sure whether to applaud Thomas Nelson and Ms. Richmond for pushing a much-needed envelope, or uncork a rant about those readers who want sterilized fiction.

In fairness, some of the reviewers above, though not offended by the story's sexual references, recognize its potential to fluster others. I believe cautioning readers is a responsible thing to do. What I don't get are those who assert that sex — even sex between a married couple — is somehow inappropriate for the Christian market.

Sex within marriage is a core value for many evangelicals. So why can't we celebrate and write about that value in our stories?

Thankfully, there are other reader / reviewers who push back.

Deborah at Books, Movies and Chinese Food says it well in her Book Review: Spring for Susanna:

I've been reading some reviews where people are offended or uncomfortable with the sexual content in this book. Ok, I'm going to be straightforward honest here. As someone who reads both general market AND Christian fiction, this book is extremely tame. What I got from this book was a husband and wife, who are newly married, started to enjoy all the benefits of marriage. They don't even consummate their marriage for several weeks. And when they do, they both discover that they enjoy it. What a foreign concept, a married couple who enjoys sex with each other! Seriously, it's actually quite refreshing to see a husband and wife love each other and enjoy being with each other. It's wonderful to see the passion out on display.

…If I hadn't seen those reviews beforehand (or actually even afterward as well), I honestly would have never thought twice about those scenes in this book. To me, they are normal. To readers of non Christian fiction, they are very tame.

By general market standards, Deborah suggests this novel is "tame." And perhaps that's the real problem: Many Christian readers do not read in the mainstream. We are so insulated in our reading that sex — even sex portrayed between married couples — is scandalous. 

Are we really at the point where NO SEX is the only acceptable form of sex in Christian fiction?

Anyway, props to Catherine Richmond and Thomas Nelson for taking a risk on Spring for Susannah. I just hope Christian readers will plan on catching up sometime soon.

Building Your Readership Through Blog Comments

Growing blog readership can be a complex affair. But if you ask popular bloggers how to draw traffic to your site, almost all of them will include commenting on other blogs as part of your strategy.

One of the most humbling parts of blogging is the realization that your blog — no matter how personal, passionate, witty, informative, provocative, or visually appealing it is to you — is just a drop in the cyber-bucket. According to Wikipedia, "As of 16 February 2011, there were over 156 million public blogs in existence." Which means if EVERY PERSON in California, Texas, New York, and Florida blogged, there would still be room for 50 million more bloggers. The chances of someone (other than your immediate friends and/or family) finding your blog and becoming a regular visitor is equivalent to hitting the lottery in one of those states. Twice.

So increasing your odds becomes a blogging imperative.

When I first began blogging (back in 2005), I spent a lot of time at Dave Long's (Sr. Acquisitions Editor for Bethany House) now defunct Faith in Fiction website and discussion board. It was a great place to be, kind of like an electronic pub or SoHo in cyberspace. There was a cool vibe, a sense that we were on the cutting edge of something great. We hung out and talked about art and faith and the publishing industry. So many of those writers have gone on to publication: Mark Bertrand, Meg Moseley, Jeanne Damoff, Michael Snyder, Don Hoesel, and others. Back then I was unpublished, inexperienced, insecure, and a little brash. Nevertheless, I knew if I wanted to be heard, I couldn't remain a lurker. I had to step out of my comfort zone and join the discussion. And as I did, I slowly found more readers migrating my way.

Which leads me to ask, Where's your cyber-SoHo?

Where's that crowd of like-minded folks who encourage you, educate you, kick-start your imagination, fire you up, and make you feel less an outsider? Are you fighting through your fears and making yourself heard there? Or are you still lurking? Are you bringing "your brand," your signature, your "calling card" with you to those hangouts? And are you saying the types of things that will generate interest and respect, and win you potential readers?

Blogger Cathy LaGrow recently messaged me this encouraging note:

Not only do I appreciate (and agree with!) Cathy's  observation, she illustrates an important dynamic of blogging. Even though I am the sole proprietor of deCOMPOSE, it is YOUR COMMENTS that make this site go.

Blog comments are often called "digital bread crumbs" because they lead a reader back to you.  I discovered this at work recently when I followed one of my regular commenters back to their own site and was pleasantly surprised to find a contingent of other regular commenters. Apparently, bloggers were finding each other through this community.

And this "cross pollination" is what makes blogging fun.

Of course, not all blog comments generate traffic toward your site. Several weeks ago I deleted a comment, which is something I rarely do, because an author dropped into a conversation and left nothing but a plug for his book. Listen, I have no problem with authors referencing their books or blog. That's what we're all here for. But if you're trolling the web looking for comment threads to plug yourself or your book, it'll show.

Call it bad "comment etiquette" if you want, but here's a few ways to ensure that your digital breadcrumbs will go to the birds.

Amens and attaboys. It's fine to leave a comment saying, "Good post," "Preach it!," or "I agree"… provided that's not the only thing you say. In doing so, many commenters come off as groupies, adding nothing to the conversation other than their obsession with the blogger. Like spiders poised on their web, waiting for a posting Alert. Comment trackback potential: ZERO.
Advertisements. If you are commenting on a post, please show that you've actually read the post by adding to the discussion and not steering it to yourself. Some comments just scream VISIT MY SITE! They usually have the opposite effect. And if you are going to plug your book, at least do it in the context of the subject matter. It's bad enough dealing with spam bots without having humans acting like them.
No link back to you. What's the point of posting Anonymous? Really. And if you're a writer without a website or blog, shame on you.
Being late to the conversation. Readers migrate to the hot topic, and with web content constantly changing, getting into the discussion early can be a great way to get your comments seen. Of course, this is not always realistic. And being perched at your computer waiting for the newest post from your favorite blogger is uncomfortably close to stalking. Nevertheless, the further you get away from the original post date, the more your chances of being heard diminish.
Sloppy, incoherent, poorly-reasoned, uninformed, grammatically-challenged comments.  Sure, no one expects perfectly edited or expertly reasoned comments, especially in the course of an ongoing discussion. Rapid-fire responses are supposed to be unpolished. However, if you're a writer, detail is part of your stock-in-trade. Every misspelled word, run-on sentence, misquote, and incoherent thought takes a bite out of your credibility. Dude, is it too much to ask that you switch on your spell check?
Dominating comment threads. There's a fine line between being engaged in conversation and hijacking a thread. Most of us want to see people coming to our site and conversing. However, there's a point when can lose sight of the subject and unduly insert ourselves into the conversation. Lots of comments can be great, but when comment threads are dominated by any one person the sense of community often withers. So learning when to leave a question unanswered and/or take the discussion off-line is an important part of blog commenting.
Combative tone. Controversy and dissent can be great for generating traffic. But you must be careful — it can also turn readers off. Visiting blogs just to dissent or rebut is troublesome. Of course, if someone agrees with your objections, you may win a reader. However, the downside can be steep. For if you come off as a troll or a troublemaker, disrespectful of the webmaster and the community of commenters, you reduce your chances of trackbacks and alienate potential readers. Unless they just want to see the freak.
Personal attacks. The web thrives on vigorous debate. But a conversation will ALWAYS end quickly when comments get personal.
Sidetracking the conversation. Keeping a discussion on point may be one of the hardest things for a blogger to do. We want to get people talking, but doing so opens the door for rabbit trails and wild goose chases. It's a delicate balance. Sometimes a sidebar conversation can be great and actually add another layer to the discussion. But do so with caution. Nothing will dampen a good conversation like a commenter whose "rabbit trail" leads to nowhere.

Leaving good blog comments on others blogs is one of the best ways to draw people to your site and build your own readership. So what are some of the things you think makes a good blog comment? What are some of the mistakes you think most blog commenters make? And what advice would you give to a lurker for overcoming their fears?

 

Bryan and Natalie Taylor — Advice to Aspiring Christian Artists

I recently had a chance to interview some of our friends, Bryan and Natalie Taylor. Bryan and Natalie have a florid background in the musical arts and both work as full-time musicians. Bryan was the associate director of chapel programs and worship leader for Azusa Pacific University. He has had the opportunity to play, record, and or perform with such artists as Justo Almario, Mac Powell, Lee Ritenour, Chuck Gerard, Tommy Walker, Brendan McCrery, Gwen Stefani, Jeff Hamilton, Candace Divine and Abraham Laboriel. Natalie has toured with Disney, performed theater, and teaches vocal lessons to budding singers. Here's a snippet of my interview in which I ask them what advice they would give to aspiring Christian artists.

You can view my entire interview with Bryan and Natalie Taylor on my YouTube Channel. You can check out Bryan's web page HERE.

Why Do Opposites Attract?

This year, Lisa and I will celebrate 31 years of marriage. They say opposites attract and, in a lot of ways, we're opposites. While Lisa is a clean freak, I'm not. She likes parties. I prefer isolation. She enjoys chick flicks… by herself. Hey, this is the stuff of marriage.

But while opposites attract, there's a catch: Most of the problems in a marriage are often the ones created by people being opposites. Their differences, many of which wooed them at first, become sore spots. The things that once attracted them now repel them. Why is this?

I've been privileged to officiate lots of weddings, and tend to take it personal when someone I've married gets a divorce. It's only happened a couple of times, thankfully. Nevertheless, I have this running tally of marriages I blessed, that failed.

Truth is, most couples bail on a marriage at the exact point it could become stronger. In other words, the marital friction is an indication of a need to grow, not an excuse to separate. But rather than work through their differences, humble themselves, and concede change, they harden their hearts and divorce. Of course there are legitimate grounds for divorce. And not everyone who marries should ride it out. But ideally, working through relational issues should be preferred to jettisoning a relationship.

So how is it that the opposite qualities that attracted a couple also work to separate them?

The way I see it, the belief that opposites attract is an admission of inferiority, of incompleteness. We are weak in an area that someone else is strong in. Lisa fills up what I lack, and vice versa. Our strengths and weaknesses not only balance us, they complete us. Marriage then is a means toward wholeness.

I'm not sure if this sits well with Modern Man. Our obsession with self-realization, personal fulfillment and independence doesn't completely jive with the suggestion we need someone else to be whole. But it harmonizes with biblical theology. After Adam named all the animals, in the early chapters of the Book of Genesis, it was said that a suitable helper was not found for him. He was lacking something. God performed surgery, caused him to sleep, and built a woman from Adam's rib (Gen. 2). Eve was the perfect partner. Why? She was literally part of Adam.

So while God made Adam from the dirt, He made Eve from Adam.* He completed Adam by extracting something — no, someone — from within him. In a sense, Eve was always in Adam.

No wonder relationships can be so volatile: Eve was formed from the splitting of the Adam.

This instinctive attraction of opposites is, I believe, a hearkening back to that Adamic yearning. Our longing is for something greater than just friendship — though friendship is no doubt part of it; it's a thirst for someone who is a part of us. However, the very dynamic of attraction is also what makes relationships potentially nuclear.

What do you think? Why do opposites attract, and why does that attraction, inevitably, separate?

* I think this is one reason postmodern Christians do not believe Adam and Eve were historical figures. A literal interpretation inevitably forces one toward a male headship model.

On Taking the Lord's Name in Vain

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." (Exodus 20:7 ESV)

I was rather disappointed that my post Did Flannery O'Connor Write Christian Fiction? digressed into a discussion about cursing in Christian fiction, particularly taking the Lord's name in vain (or to be more exact, having one of our characters do so). Anyway, during that conversation, much was assumed and implied about that particular expletive. I'd like to take a couple of minutes to address what I feel is our erroneous approach.

Let me begin with my thesis:

We have wrenched the Third Commandment from its context and reduced it to a simplistic formula, which betrays the very superstition it decries. As a result, Christians (or professing Christians) take the name of God in vain far more than do foul-mouthed unbelievers.

Most Americans assume, whether through conscience, social mores, or religious tradition, that taking the name of the Lord in vain means saying the phrase… "goddammit." Christians take this a step further. We believe that the person who utters that phrase, whether it is used as an expletive, quoted, referenced, cited, or put in the mouth of a fictional character, is categorically profane.

I personally believe this approach is unbiblical and borderline superstition. Let me explain.

For one, God's name is not… God. The English transliteration of the Hebrew name revealed to Moses is YHWH. Some translate the word as Yahweh or Jehovah. Call this a technicality, if you will. Nevertheless, the word "God" is generic for any deity or supreme being. Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Baptists, Buddhists, even atheists all use the word "God" in one way or another.

Believing as Christians do that there are false gods, if one curses in the name of their "god," have they broken the Third Commandment? (I mean, does Zeus damn you! really deserve a lightning bolt?) Or can only those of a Judeo-Christian worldview take the name of God in vain? (Meaning all you druids are off the hook.) And if we are approaching this thing literally, then taking the name of God in vain would have to involve His actual name. Which means asking Yahweh or Jehovah to damn something (a request actually made by several biblical prophets) is really the offending phrase. Unless, of course, certain things are God damned.

Secondly, the commandment really has more to do with careless, frivolous oaths, than it does speaking any one particular word or phrase. explains it this way:

In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

In other words, taking the name of the Lord in vain would be something like swearing by Jehovah, the God of Israel, that you did not swipe your neighbor's plow, when in fact you did. Jesus appeared to speak to this when He said, "Do not swear an oath at all" (Matt. 5:33-37), for as this commentary explains, "oaths by definition called on a deity to witness them." In this sense, taking God's name in vain means throwing around reckless promises, oaths, and pledges using the Christian God as your witness.

In , Credo House helps us understand the context of the Third Commandment.

The nations to which the Israelites were going had many gods. They were highly superstitious. Their prophets would often use the name of their god in pronouncements. The usage could be in a curse, hex, or even a blessing. They would use the name of their god to give their statements, whatever they may be, authority. To pronounce something in their own name would not have given their words much weight, but to pronounce something in the name of a god meant that people would listen and fear. They may have said, "In the name of Baal, there will be no rain for 40 days." Or "In the name of Marduk, I say that you will win this battle." This gave the prophet much power and authority. But, as we know, there is no Baal or Marduk. Since this is the case, they did not really make such pronouncement and therefore the words of the prophet had no authority and should neither have been praised or feared.

God was attempting to prevent the Israelites from doing the same thing. God was saying for them not to use His name like the nations used the names of their gods. He did not want them to use His name to invoke false authority behind pronouncements. In essence, God did not want the Israelites to say that He said something that He had not said.

This interjects another angle into our understanding of taking the Lord's name in vain, doesn't it? It's why noted Bible teacher Chuck Missler suggested that taking the Lord's name in vain is less about vocabulary than it is about "ambassadorship." In other words, we represent the character and power and dignity (the Name) of our God on this earth. We must live in such a way as to not trivialize, prostitute, and misrepresent Him. This is why I say that believers (or professing believers) take the name of God in vain far more often than do foul-mouthed unbelievers. Why? Because it's not about our vocabulary but our overall witness.

If we reduce taking God's name in vain to simply a string of words, not only are we missing the larger point of the commandment, we are potentially promoting superstition.

Remember that old urban legend about the Candyman? Stand in front of the mirror and say "Candyman" five times and you're dead. As if the right (or wrong?) combination of words catalyzes some universal formula. How is our conception about taking God's name in vain any different? You know, string those two words together and suddenly you've crossed the line. Like saying "Candyman" for the fifth and final time.

This, I believe, is evidence of a "touch not, taste not, handle not" (Col. 2:21) mentality that permeates Evangelicalism today. We demonize things — music, clothes, foods, art, objects, places, and words. It's total paganism. The belief that a specific string of words is inherently profane is akin to sorcery. It is "abracadabra" in reverse.

Furthermore, if the real issue is not using the word "God" carelessly, then commonly accepted sayings like "God bless you" and "oh my God" are equally as sinful. I mean, do we really mean to invoke God's blessings on someone who sneezes? Do unbelievers have the ability to summon such a blessing? Or is it just a stupid, yet well-intentioned, cultural idiom? Saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes can be as "vain" and meaningless as saying "God damn you" when someone doesn't.

Of course, some people who use the aforementioned expletive ARE being flippant, profane, sloppy, and sacrilegious. I'm not defending them. The Bible is very clear about the power of words, the venom in our tongues, and our responsibility to watch how we speak. However, the Bible does not specify a hierarchy of cusswords. And neither should we.

Your thoughts?