What makes a book "Christian"?

[R.J.]

Hercules was also a son of a god: Zeus. If he showed up in Israel he'd get stoned for blasphemy, too, I'm sure.

The problem I have is that, by equating the finite, physical personhood of Jesus to the Creator of the Universe, we confine something so vast, so unfathomable, into a very small box. I, personally, am one who sought God and wound up finding Him beyond the "confinements" of Jesus. Having returned to the scriptures to help explain my own spiritual experience, I discovered that some of those passages used to extrapolate the "Jesus is God" dogma can be interpreted in very different ways.

Foremost is John 1. The Greek word used for "Word" (logos) does not mean "sacred and holy law" as most theologians assume it to mean (because somebody somewhere told them so). It is used quite often in secular Greek texts (philosophical writings) to describe the communication of an idea or the intention of an act. In that passage, I don't see "the Law became flesh". I see the intentions of God becoming flesh. God, however, is too vast to fit in His entirety into those fleshly intentions. Jesus is a fraction of His intentions—a portion of His galaxy-spanning Spirit. Just as this tiny little planet is only a fraction of God's Creation.

Before I get stoned for being "spiritualist" or whatever other word somebody wants to label me by, let me say it like this: When I consider Jesus, I see the physical manifestation of the Spirit of God. But I don't see God in His entirety. God, the Spinner of Galaxies, does not fit within the confines of a single human body. Does that make Jesus irrelevant? No. Does that make His teachings or sacrifice any less powerful? No.

The question I then ask is this: why did God manifest as Jesus? Well, why did God manifest as His Spirit to the prophets? Why did God manifest His "Logos" as inspiration to write the Bible? Was it to give us what we want? To tell us what we want to hear? Or was it to share with us something God wanted to say? If the latter, then what would God want to say? Could it be that He has always been trying to share with us His Logos? His original intentions—the original Design—for which we were created?

The original Disciples of Christ did not call themselves “Christians”. They called themselves “Followers of the Way.” The “Way” was not Christ. It was taught by Christ, but, in a sense, it was bigger than Jesus. This is how I understand it, and with this understanding, it makes sense. It explains why the early manuscripts did not focus so much on the resurrection as they did on the teachings. Paul went on to solidify Christ as the figurehead of this new movement when he claimed that neither he nor Apollos were worthy to claim followers, and by that point, the understanding of the “Way” had begun to lose ground. That doesn’t mean that the “Way” was not God’s original “Logos”.

[R.J.]

Why is the “Way” still important? Because I am seeing a plague of dying churches brought on by a lack of attention to this teaching. It is true that many a church’s tithes come from the elderly, and it is true that many of the elderly (not all, but a significant amount) prefer the pastor focus on afterlife teachings that are more relevant to those staring down the barrel of eternity. As a youth leader, I can say I’ve butted heads with those elderly and the elders that embrace their ways. What the next generation needs, however, is less talk of the afterlife and more talk about how to get through this one. These kids are staring down the rest of their life and often the church has offered them little to no guidance.

I have to say, then, that a Christian book in the youth section is going to have more influence on its reader if it leaves salvation to the Sunday morning altar call and instead gives those kids some of the meat that church—especially a salvation-focused church—is lacking.

[Hannah]

Robert wrote: "Hercules was also a son of a god: Zeus. If he showed up in Israel he'd get stoned for blasphemy, too, I'm sure.

The problem I have is that, by equating the finite, physical personhood of Jesus to ..."

My night is ending, but... I just have to point this out.

You began your argument against accepted Biblical knowledge by saying, "Are you able to find your doctrine in the Bible without tradition and interpretation?"

Yet now you are bringing in obscure history, filaments of comparisons between religious tradition, and Greek study?

Why do you expect me to find my beliefs in the Bible and then argue from other texts and traditions?

[Tito]

Robert wrote: "Why is the “Way” still important? Because I am seeing a plague of dying churches brought on by a lack of attention to this teaching. It is true that many a church’s tithes come from the elderly, an..."

Hi Robert,

I have read your last few posts trying to work out your precise point. Perhaps the problem is that you have woven in too many strands and I'm confusing myself.

But to answer your root question 'Where does the Bible say that Jesus is God?'....

In short, the fact that it doesn't say it as bluntly as you phrase it should itself be a warning. A simple equation "Jesus = God" seems neat, but that doesn't make it accurate. As I've said in earlier posts, God 'in Himself' is beyond our comprehension.

All our doctrines are metaphors trying to describe perhaps this aspect, perhaps another, of the Incomprehensible in so far as we are able to grasp it. So ANY religion that dots all the third vowels and crosses all the appropriate consonants thereby proves itself to be dumbed-down and lacking something, not the Reality itself.

But to move on further, the New Testament repeatedly ascribes to Jesus titles and position and authority and powers, etc that are unique to God. Other writers have listed several. But the Scriptures never make a clumsy identity as you have asked, because that would be to attempt to cut God down to the size of a man. God is bigger than that! I can only say that 'In Jesus we see what God is like.'

Another thread that I think I detect in what you have posted is that 'the Way' is central while the personality of the Carpenter of Nazareth is purely to teacher. (My apologies for this over-simplification of your more nuanced position).

But you stop one step short. the teaching of 'the Way' is not just some ethical or moral code. It is the Imitation of Christ, in thought, word and deed. We are not called to conformity NOT with a list of precepts, but with a Person. Everything that would appear to be an ethical precept is no more than a Rule of Thumb to assist towards this core purpose of conformity with that Person.

For this reason I have shocked my Muslim friends by saying 'Christianity has no rules. We follow a Person, not a Code.' (That really got them asking what I mean!)

Again I apologise if I have seemed to treat your comments unfairly, but it is in the nature of such discussions to seek brevity and clarity, even at the expense of subtle detail.

[AlegnaB †]

Robert wrote: "...The original Disciples of Christ did not call themselves “Christians”. They called themselves “Followers of the Way.” The “Way” was not Christ..."

John 14:6 -- "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

[AlegnaB †]

Robert wrote: "...it is true that many of the elderly (not all, but a significant amount) prefer the pastor focus on afterlife teachings that are more relevant to those staring down the barrel of eternity... What the next generation needs, however, is less talk of the afterlife and more talk about how to get through this one."

My experience in churches has been very different from yours. In the churches I've been a member of, the pastors have constantly emphasized application of scripture to our daily lives and have encouraged us to live godly lives partly so that others will be drawn to Christ. The leadership of the churches has been committed to the inerrancy of the scripture and the truth that Jesus is the only way to heaven.

My oldest child used to sometimes stay with his grandparents on weekends and go to church on Sunday with them. He finally told me when he was in his mid teens that he didn't want to go to their church anymore. He said that it was just a bunch of feel-good sermons. He much prefers the meaty sermons of our pastor, which often bring conviction. I thank the Lord for my church and my pastor, who often shares with the congregation his own struggles. He's a godly man, and I'm glad that he's in my children's lives (he also teaches the youth Sunday School class and usually is the one does the devotional/lesson during youth events). He will soon be my second son's father-in-law.

[Diana]

Robert wrote: "Hercules was also a son of a god: Zeus. If he showed up in Israel he'd get stoned for blasphemy, too, I'm sure.

The problem I have is that, by equating the finite, physical personhood of Jesus to ..."

Robert, first of all, to put my cards on the table, I am in my real, as opposed to my authorial, name a professional biblical scholar. I read all the biblical languages, and at 78 have done so for decades. I realise that you have read quite a bit; but I do recommend that on for instance something like the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel you look at a couple of classic commentaries [C.H. Dodd comes to mind] in order to get at the deeper sense of the words. To try DIY exegesis is to become very rapidly way out of your depth.

Next, I think that you have been caught up in a by now very old Jesus v. Paul approach to Christian origins. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony is an important modern study. "It explains why the early manuscripts did not focus so much on the resurrection as they did on the teachings." is probably your way of referring to the four canonical gospels. Those documents are all LATER than most if not all of the Pauline epistles, and were written from faith to faith. For all those people, the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension were absolutely central. There would have been no Church without those truths. See the classic The riddle of the New Testament So as the eyewitnesses died off, Gospel accounts were written, all four being essentially Passion narratives with extended introductions. They contain only a fraction of all that Jesus said and did in his teaching and healing ministry, enough essentially to show what Man it was that died and rose again.

[Hannah]

Robert wrote: "Hercules was also a son of a god: Zeus. If he showed up in Israel he'd get stoned for blasphemy, too, I'm sure.

The problem I have is that, by equating the finite, physical personhood of Jesus to ..."

In answer to your claim about terminology...no, they did not call themselves "Followers of the Way." They were called disciples, Christ-followers, believers, saints, and many other such things.

Jesus is the only way to life. It is not limiting of God to send His Son to save the world. What more could we possible need? If any other way to heaven existed, He would not have died. He chose to take the form of a human and be limited to human life for 33 years out of love for mankind. God the Father was still in Heaven; the Holy Spirit enabling on earth. But God the Son was fully God and fully man.

It does not matter if you have a problem believing it. There is ample proof that Jesus lived and died as a man. No one has ever been able to explain the Resurrection. No mere man could fulfil the tiniest fraction of the prophecies if he was not indeed sent of God. Jesus claimed repeatedly to be God, to be omniscient, to be everlasting. He existed before time began and will exist forever. There is no "good human" belief available. Either he was a deluded madman or He was the true Son of God, with power to give up His life and power to take it up again.

Why, if you think that God is not limited to one faith, and that salvation through Jesus is "too limiting," why did you pick to be called "Christian"?

[Hannah]

Robert wrote: "Why is the “Way” still important? Because I am seeing a plague of dying churches brought on by a lack of attention to this teaching. It is true that many a church’s tithes come from the elderly, an..."

What does it matter if churches die, if you do not believe that truth is limited to churches? Why care? Why not just let them fade away and enjoy starting your own fellowship of those who believe as you do?

First we must evangelize, yes. Eternity is much more vast than our poor few years on earth. First take care of that. Yes, indeed, some churches never get past the initial message. Many, many churches are working hard to build and equip young people to become mature believers.

I do find it off-putting that you classed the elderly in as being too focused on eternity for selfish purposes. Supposedly, if they're in the church, they took care of that choice long ago. Their fault is in not making disciples; the Baby Boomer generation often seems to have forgotten that detail. But many churches are fully focused on both goals, to save and to edify, and they absolutely work best together. They are not mutually exclusive. It is not just the elderly who are interested in spreading the Gospel. Young people are recognizing the need, and hearing about what is happening in college ministry is very encouraging.

What meat is offered if they are not doing it through the help of being born again? If you have not put off the sinful attitudes of man, it's like being offered meat but not having dentures in to chew it. A toothless person gains little good from steak.

[Tito]

Robert wrote: "Why is the “Way” still important? Because I am seeing a plague of dying churches brought on by a lack of attention to this teaching. It is true that many a church’s tithes come from the elderly, an..."

Hi Robert,

I've thought a bit more about your posts. Always a good idea to understand things that challenge my position; it makes me think deeper!

Yes, in one sense you are right when you imply that 'The Way' is more important than 'the Historical Christ' (in so far as such a figure can be known except as a record of something more).

But in my mind, 'The Way' is the personal adoption of Christ as not only a role-model, but the core of my being. To separate 'The Way' from 'The Christ-Person' therefore becomes a contradiction in terms.

This approach also bears on your separation of 'Salvation' preaching from 'How to live' preaching. Under my understanding, 'Salvation' isn't a matter of 'where I go when I die' so much as 'what I become while I live and is completed at my death'.

With all respect to those who take images of Heaven more literally, I see these as metaphors. Whatever comes later is (in a sense) irrelevant. It is living in and for Christ that motivates me, not some treat at the end.

If pressed, I would tend towards a 'corporatist' understanding of Salvation. This springs out of Paul's 'Christ-mysticism' and speculates that only Jesus is 'in heaven', and we are 'saved' only by identification with him. This sounds at first like a Buddhist Nirvana, but it is still expected to be (to some degree) self-conscious. (I would welcome Diana's professional input on this question!)

But I readily concede that this is speculation . Whatever God has in mind will doubtless be all we could hope for; if only we knew what it was!

[Diana]

Bob wrote: "Robert wrote: "Why is the “Way” still important? Because I am seeing a plague of dying churches brought on by a lack of attention to this teaching. It is true that many a church’s tithes come from ..."

"If pressed, I would tend towards a 'corporatist' understanding of Salvation. This springs out of Paul's 'Christ-mysticism' and speculates that only Jesus is 'in heaven', and we are 'saved' only by identification with him. This sounds at first like a Buddhist Nirvana, but it is still expected to be (to some degree) self-conscious. (I would welcome Diana's professional input on this question!)"

Well, here are links to some input which being a record of preaching is not necessarily too technical, but has plenty of professional considerations behind it: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nicene... ; and https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nicene... .

And here is something a bit more technical about the judgment of those who have never heard, therefore never rejected, the Gospel: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/201411... . That will not be quite as accessible to all readers here as the sermons, because the argument is based on Hebrew and Greek.

Nobody should run away with the idea that I believe that any are saved who are not saved through Christ. I believe merely that we mortals are not always in a position to understand exactly how salvation works in particular cases, in other words it's not MY judgment that counts (Surprise, surprise!).

[R.J.]

Hannah, I must ask: Where does Jesus say "This is how to get into Heaven"? Before you answer, I must admit I know it is there. But did he only mean "this is how to be resurrected" or "this is how to get into the afterlife"?

If you look at the Greek words for "life" that are used in the New Testament, you'll discover two very different-meaning words being translated as "life" in the English Bible. One is "Psyche", which seems to define a kind of self-awareness or soul. The other word used is "Zoe", which seems to indicate this kind of overflowing, abundant life. It can also be used to refer to life as a whole--the greater entity of "life" that we who have a psyche are merely part of. Psyche and Zoe, if you look at it from the angle of self-orientation v. others-orientation, are incompatible with each other and should never have been translated into the same word (although in some spots "Zoe" has come to mean "Eternal Life").

There's a story in the Gospels where Jesus is asked "how can I achieve Psyche?" In the English version, it's all the same word, but in the Greek, Jesus answers by using the word to "Zoe" and describing a very different prognosis. The idea I get, when I understand the Greek words, is that Jesus is saying something like, "You want to focus on your own self-aware soul, but in order to become a part of this bigger, Zoe-life, you must give up your own Psyche."

I am not alone in seeing "Zoe" as something on this side of death. The idea that the "Kingdom of Heaven" is a concept we can all strive for has been voiced and hinted at in many writings (although I have to wonder if I am imagining it within a few). I just recently read Marcus Borg, a contemporary theologian, who does very well to describe this vision of the Kingdom here on Earth as it is in Heaven. Of course, there are a lot of "Christians" who don't think he's a Christian simply because he has this very different view of this concept. I have to say, though, that he makes a lot more sense than some of the other theologians who resort to big words and "mysteries" to bluff their way through their presentation.

[R.J.]

As far as the whole Paul v. Jesus controversy, I cannot take a side. I do, however, see Paul's side from a very different angle. Paul had a transformative experience. Paul is not alone in having these kinds of experiences. However, within the Bible, Paul is one of only a few people to have such an experience. These experiences have been documented happening to people all over the world, all through history, and in very different cultures and circumstances. You can argue that only Paul's inspiration came from God, but to then argue that this same God is vast and incomprehensible is a bit of a paradox.

I use Buddha as an example because his transformation was similar, and its results (the inevitable corruption of his teachings into a silly religion) are noteworthy. It stands that there may be individuals who, seeking truth, are granted a taste of the vastness of their Creator and, coming from different cultural backgrounds, describe a similar spiritual experience in vastly different ways. It's the old story of the blind man and the elephant. There is also the possibility that God, knowing what each culture needs, addresses each culture with the spiritual revelation they need. Buddha's transformation addressed a religion steeped in human sacrifice, self-indulgence, and a calloused disregard for fellow man. It was just what the orient needed at the time. I credit that to the same loving God who so loved the world...

As for the fear that these non-Biblical spiritualists might be wolves in sheep's clothing, let me remind you that they don't blend in whatsoever with the "sheep" of Christianity. They usually make no effort to "convert" by means of deception. If anything, they conceal their zeal because they fear persecution--from Christians as much as from their own cultural roots. No, the wolves so often warned about are more often in shepherd's clothing, not so much blending in with the sheep as they are seizing leadership of the flock and dragging whole congregations out of the pasture, through the forest, and into their den.

[R.J.]

An interesting vision of "heaven" can be found in the teachings of Francois Blanchett, one of the first missionaries to the Native Americans of the Cascadia region. Blanchett used the name "Tyhee Sahalie" to describe God. It literally means "Big Chief Up Above". That could indicate that Blanchett was trying to say that God was up in the clouds above us, but the social structure of the people he was preaching to was such that they might have seen it differently.

Within the various tribes and peoples of the Cascadia region, every man in charge of a household or group of his people was considered a chief. He, in turn, answered to a larger, higher-up chief--the "Big Chief". There was a hierarchy. Within the Pacific Northwest, this hierarchy was expanded even more by the common trading language which Blanchett eventually used to evangelize the people. Many tribes and cultures recognized the concept of a Tyhee, as well as the idea that there was a greater group of people within the region that spoke a common language and often worked and traded together as part of an even greater unity.

In the spiritual world, these tribes also recognized a hierarchy of the spiritual beings. While the individual may pray to the spirit of the bear or the eagle, there was also a "Great Spirit" that encompassed and overarched these lesser beings. It may very well be that Blanchett was referencing a similar concept as the "Great Spirit" when he used "Sahalie" to describe God. Tyhee Sahalie was a big chief above the big chiefs. The King of Kings. Here on Earth.

Unfortunately, Blanchett's teachings of unity were disrupted by massive migrations of white people into the region. The native population was uprooted and moved onto reservations. To this day, they are united not by the concept of a Tyhee Sahalie, but by the commonality of having lost their homelands and their way of life to the ambitions of those who thought Tyhee Sahalie loved the white man more than anybody else.

[Beth]

Robert, at this point you are way, way off the original topic. Having different views of what the Bible says is fine, but I'm not sure what your original intentions even were in posting. You seem to be making points that no one is arguing about, nor are you really responding directly to members that have responded to your comments. I think it would be appreciated if you didn't jump to random topics that deviate greatly from the original intent of the discussion. By that, I mean that you seem more interested in a debate about the Bible and what it "actually" meant, etc. rather than what Christian fiction is/should be.

[Patrick]

Hannah wrote: "So...what makes it Christian? Publishers disagree, but my definition, and that of many of my friends, is 1) something that presents the Gospel in an evangelistic way or 2) something that shows Chri..."

Well stated, Hannah! I agree, wholeheartedly.

[Diana]

Beth wrote: "Robert, at this point you are way, way off the original topic. Having different views of what the Bible says is fine, but I'm not sure what your original intentions even were in posting. You seem t..."

Yes.

Perhaps I may sum up what I believe Christian fiction to be. It is fiction which comes out of the mind and heart of one who worships Jesus Christ with mind and heart. Obviously such a one may write all kinds of book, for instance about particle physics or cookery. But that will not be Christian fiction.

[Tom]

I'm so tuned in to that Facebook non-sense that I've spent the last 5 minutes looking for where I could click "like" next to Diana's last
comment. So I just say it I guess- "Like"

[R.J.]

Beth wrote: "Robert, at this point you are way, way off the original topic. Having different views of what the Bible says is fine, but I'm not sure what your original intentions even were in posting. You seem t..."

Okay, Beth. I will address this one to you.

I can understand how the post about Tyhee Sahalie may seem a deviation, but to me it is not. That is because one of the writing projects I am working on right now features several main characters who know God as “Tyee Sahalie”.

I was originally attracted to this discussion because I am a writer. I made the mistake of marketing my books to the “Christian” audience, not realizing how closed-minded and bigoted the “Christian” reader is. My first taste of that closed-mindedness came when my first book, Men of Renown, was criticized for characterizing a Nephilim in a “non-Biblical” way. I then hit a wall from critics who refused to read it because the story begins within the mythology of Atlantis and doesn’t introduce the Biblical characters until more than halfway through the plot. Ironically, Men of Renown has a symbolic message for "salvation", which is the closest I have apparently come to a "Christian" book by some of the standards listed in these comments.

After my failure with Men of Renown, I was inspired to begin a fantasy series in which the main characters come from diverse backgrounds and have to discuss their differences in faith as they go through their adventures. The first book, The Sarain’s Sword, used a sword to symbolize the Bible as a tool for both good and evil, depending on the person using it. It was criticized for being too preachy, so I toned it down in the second book. That adventure contrasts two very different personality types I see in Christianity: the reckless, grace-dependent “children of God” and the sober-and-alert stoics. When I wrote my third book of the series, my own church had fallen apart due to politics and infighting, so the theme was heavily based on divisions within the church. None of these themes have anything to do with the trinity and barely touch on “salvation” (except that my fairy constantly cries out for God to save her from the trouble she gets herself into). Does that mean they are not “Christian”?

What is even more interesting (and perplexing) than my failure to attract “Christian” readers is my sudden success with a book I published to the secular world under a pen name. It sold without any need for advertisement. By the time I went to post it on Goodreads, it was already there with a four-star review attached. I wasted five years, tons of money, and a lot of time trying to get readers to read my “Christian” books, and here after three months I already have ten good reviews on my other book with none of the effort. Considering that I snuck a Bible lesson into the middle of the story, it is kind of ironic that these four and five-star reviews are coming from the secular world. They may read a lot of garbage, but they’re also reading some of the good stuff. Why? Because they’re not afraid to read something that doesn’t fit into their pre-conceived mold of what it ought to be.

[R.J.]

Here’s an illustration: a family on vacation, riding in the car. The kids are all occupied with things going on inside the car—the DVD player, their cell phones, the comic book or maybe the pocket video game in their lap. Dad tries to point out the scenery and gets snapped at because the kids think that what they are focused on is more important. In my car, the argument is real: what is more important? “Dad, it’s just another sunset,” they say, or, “It’s just another river.” It’s always just another old house, or tree, or whatever. They get down-right irritated at me for “distracting” them from whatever it is there in their hand that is the most important thing in the world.

Compare that illustration to the “Christian” book. What is important in the book? Could it be that some are focused on one aspect, while others are seeing something completely different? Who is right? Is it really responsible to say that one is wrong because nobody else “in the car” thinks their focus is important?

I admit that my views may be a little off from “mainstream”, but you have to agree that few “Christians” openly agree with where the “mainstream” is going. Reading the comments on this thread, I am alarmed to see all the “hoops” readers are requiring a book to jump through before they can deem it “Christian”. This is not only harmful because it excludes, but dangerous when it includes books (and teachings) that have no business infiltrating the teachings of Christ. I’ve picked up a lot of these books in my own Christian bookstores, and I’m alarmed to read how many good reviews they get from Christian readers here on Goodreads. Does nobody practice discernment anymore?

What I am saying is this: When you confine “Christian” to a set of definitions, you had better be right, and you had better be exact. If you are off, not only do you exclude many who are honestly pursuing what Christ means to them with a different viewpoint or way, you include many of those who are "wolves" because they’ve managed to don the “definition” that you are looking for.

[Tito]

Hannah said (August 4, 5:58 PM) 'Many churches are fully focused on both goals, to save and to edify, and they absolutely work best together. They are not nutually exclusive.'

Amen, Hannah! It is not enough to give birth to new life; you have to feed it, protect it, guide it, nurture it if it is to become all it was intended to be! Paul, perhaps the most famous evangelist of all time, stated his aim was 'to present every person mature in Christ.' Conversion was only the first step in this process.

So those (and I hope they are very few!) who like to put notches in their Bible for 'souls saved' will realise that this should not be measured by how many enter the race, but by how many complete it.

[R.J.]

Wait a minute, Bob. Did you just use the illustration of a race? Is that Christian? Then why aren't we doing that in church? Shouldn't there be a denomination where they run around the block instead of singing hymns? Why don't more people use the symbolism of extreme, physical exercise instead of just casual consumption of bread and wine?

Oh wait. Never mind. There are. They just don't go to church on Sundays. Instead, they like to schedule their athletic events on Sunday morning while most of the religious population are trying to drive to church. In my city, there are several annual races that get the transportation department to disable some of the major stoplights along their route so that they can disrupt Sunday morning traffic while they're running. Then, it being Sunday, the city workers go home and leave these major intersections disabled while the church crowd tries to make its way home amid the chaos. Not a very good representation of the "runner".

Seriously, though, why isn't there more emphasis on the runner? I recently did a comparison of Bill Cosby and Dr. Martin Luther King--two men who ran well, but had very different finishes. The race was a great way of illustrating their differences. One was taken in his prime, but finished well. One was allowed to linger on the track, to extend his sprint into a marathon. His end was just as tragic, but in a much less noble way. That would make a good story, you know.

[Joe]

What makes any novel a Christian novel is that the content presents an overall interest and intent to share the good news about Jesus Christ to the readers. This can be directly about the Christian life, by example of the characters modeling Christ-like behavior, or allegorically, where characters/events are symbolic of biblical elements.

[T.C.]

That sounds like a reasonable definition.

[Nathan]

@ Joe

Absolutely agree with that

[Joe]

Another way to measure a book on whether or not it would be considered Christian Fiction, is this; If Jesus Christ were the actual publisher, would he endorse and wholeheartedly promote the book to the world?

[Sheila]

Joe wrote: "Another way to measure a book on whether or not it would be considered Christian Fiction, is this; If Jesus Christ were the actual publisher, would he endorse and wholeheartedly promote the book to..."

Thank you, Joe. There is great wisdom to your simple answer.

[Marshalee]

I believe what makes a book Christian is when we let the Lord direct us in what we write and not about what we feel is. The Holy-Spirit will guide you in what is acceptable to the Lord and what isn't, we have to remove pride to be used rightly by the creator to have him minister through us and set the platform for how he will use us.

[Tito]

C.J.R. wrote: "Hello Sheila and Joe,

I'm thinking that if a novel promotes Christ, it measures up. Admittedly, in writing Rogue's Arena, I pushed the envelope a lot being rather inspired by David among others. Y..."

Hi, CJR,
I twitched a bit when I read what you wrote about David.

The Popular reading of this episode seems to be 'If you have faith, you can conquer anything!' That seems more like Dale Carnegie's School of Self-Confidence than the Gospel. My reading of Goliath's defeat is that kings and armies mean nothing when it comes to the problem of saving God's people; victory can only be won by the Anointed whom God will provide. So don't rely on your own strength, or wisdom, or even your 'faith'; Instead, rely on the work of the One whom God provided.

A bit more humbling, I suppose, but heaps more realistic.

[Tito]

Marshalee wrote: "I believe what makes a book Christian is when we let the Lord direct us in what we write and not about what we feel is. The Holy-Spirit will guide you in what is acceptable to the Lord and what isn..."

What you say is true in retrospect, and for writers rather than readers.

I know from my own experience how I had to wrestle as I wrote. It was not a matter of sitting quietly and taking 'spiritual dictation'. And then there were the times beyond counting I went back to proof-read and polish and re-phrase and amend.... Only afterwards do I look back and wonder how I managed to come up with that! A pearl planted in my soul by God, but I still had to dredge it up!

But the reader knows nothing of this. From the reader's perspective, a book is 'Christian' if it brings about a greater measure of understanding, personal commitment, Christian maturity.

Any particular book might be instructive or devotional, or it might even be dystopic. But does it bring this specific reader to some greater depth of understanding or reliance on God? Even if it brings a sense of despair, and causes the reader to throw himself or herself even more on the grace of God for lack of any other hope! What helps one reader might not help another.

So I suppose my answer boils down to 'a book is Christian to the extent to which God can use it to form the reader into the Image of Christ'.

[Diana]

C.J.R. wrote: "Hello Sheila and Joe,

I'm thinking that if a novel promotes Christ, it measures up. Admittedly, in writing Rogue's Arena, I pushed the envelope a lot being rather inspired by David among others. Y..."

Sheila wrote: "Joe wrote: "Another way to measure a book on whether or not it would be considered Christian Fiction, is this; If Jesus Christ were the actual publisher, would he endorse and wholeheartedly promote..."

Christopher (my dear late husband's name), "You ever wonder if maybe Jesus was thinking about that when he whipped those thievin' merchants out of the temple?" includes a common misreading of the accounts of the Cleansing of the Temple. The Lord never applied the whip to any human beings, or committed any other violence of that kind.

[Diana]

C.J.R. wrote: "Within our genre, we all have opinions when writing/reading fiction. And, as such, in my communication I chose to use the words "...whipped those thievin' merchants out of the temple" as an inclusi..."

Thanks, C.J.R. for referring to the Greek of the Fourth Gospel ch. 2. vv. 13-17. All four Gospels use the verb ἐκβάλλω which may be accurately as well as literally rendered “throw out”; only John mentions the making of a whip. He says, to be completely accurate, “He threw all (of them) [masculine for common gender] out of the Temple, both (τε) the sheep [neuter] and (καὶ) the oxen [masculine]”, in other words “both the sheep and the oxen” is epexegetic of “all (of them)”. I believe that he is being very careful here; and conceivably, having the Synoptic accounts before him, is concerned to ensure that the reader doesn’t get it wrong about how the people as opposed to the animals were ‘thrown out’.

I have no argument with you about the tense, which is indeed one of decisive action. And I realise that this is an informal discussion about literature. I wrote under my authorial name, not wearing my scholar’s hat. In real life however I am a biblical philologist, and as a Christian leader am concerned that no-one should take Our Lord to be a man who ever inflicted physical violence on any human being, or advocated for it by precept or example. Animals must be driven in order to get them to move, people may not be expelled in that literal sense. Let's leave that sort of treatment to one or two other religions, naming no names.

Email me if you want to know who Diana Maryon is really …

[Bonny]

Lieniitte wrote: "To be very honest, I often feel that a lot of fiction that is marked as Christian fiction is simply clean fiction where sometimes the main character happens to open a Bible a few times or happens t..."

I finally read this thread, from beginning to end, and I really appreciated what several of you said, especially some of the posts near the beginning (including Lieniitte, Teri-k, Karin, Jane, and our wonderful moderator Beth!). I definitely agree with your post #8, Lieniitte, and greatly appreciate books that point me closer to my walk with Christ rather than just throwing in references to church. Clean reads are nice too, but I love it when a book challenges me in my faith!

[Beth]

Thank you all for these great comments. I think that there are many books that are considered "clean reads" that aren't Christian at all. I'm thankful for all of the input here. I have written in several genres--all clean; but my most successful ones so far have been very Christian in nature, dealing with spiritual warfare and the power of prayer (in the form of a novel, not philosophical).

I hope you all keep posting--it's helpful to me as an author to hear your thoughts about what you like.

Happy reading and Happy New Year!

[Malcolm]

Formula writing often demands a clean read. Even thrillers aimed at an adult male readership tend to soften the realities of the spying business. Then detective stories tend to feature a quick murder with a rational motive, Mills and Boons used to be very conservative, but nowadays the heroines have had past experiences and have pre-marital (but tasteful) intercourse with the hero before the offer of marriage. They had to submit to reality.

Formula writing often isn't terribly good, which leads some writers to think that they can produce artistically more significant works by deliberately breaching the formula's taste guidelines. There's often a bit of truth in that, but only a bit. "Pretentious literary filth" is almost its own formulaic genre, and most people are familiar with it.

Then writers who try to keep to good taste as a way of being neutral tend to find themselves challenged from the secular side. Why not more black characters? Or families with alternative arrangements to Mum Dad and kids? Or wouldn't a nice homosexual couple be more diverse and inclusive? Books can be "clean" but subtly anti-Christian.