Step back with me to 2006 and 2007:

I was the Friday Femme here on Speculative Faith, a site I helped to found. Oh, that was a fun year, 2006. Lots of us who had met online through blogs or through chatting it up on the ACFW forum on the subject of Christian Speculative Fiction (CSF), we who were aching to see the CBA address our reader wants and needs, we who were writing CSF and seeking to define it more clearly, we who were passionate about the SF genre. Yeah, a great sort of simmering summer gave birth to this website. Our little group also got the Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog Tour going. Those two years blazed: I was editing and writing with fire in my soul. I won the SF category in the ACFW’s Genesis Contest. I was blogging furiously on matters of reading SF, writing SF, loving SF, SF art, SF poetry. I edited CSF at the defunct DRAGONS, KNIGHTS & ANGELS webzine, then at MINDFLIGHTS, another CSF-friendly webzine. Oh, and I won two short story contests, one poetry contest, and I had a Rhysling nominated poem, too.

Then, I walked away.

I stopped writing. I stopped reading CSF, pretty much, except for what I was editing. Naturally, there were some exceptions, but not many.

What happened? Specifically, what happened to me as a reader?  And I would ask: has this happened to you as well? Did you self-exile from CSF? Were you disappointed by the offerings from the CBA?

Part of my disenchantment came from realizing that the CBA continued to be pretty hostile to most SF, and many agents outright stated they’d not consider clients who wrote CSF. (And yes, I know the term CBA is archaic, but I continue to use it to mean the Christian publishing establishment, as separate from the ABA.)

The rest of my disillusionment—most, to be honest—was born from a fundamental realization: I was not enjoying, was not even finishing, most of the books we were promoting, blogging about, and supporting. Those CSF books coming out from CBA publishers bored me. Minority characters were nearly non-existent, as if the church were devoid of any but the white and the Western. The emphasis on YA books left me out quite often. Some novels/series were fun—FIREBIRD, THE BIRTHRIGHT PROJECT, RESTORER, to name three. And some others were quite good reads, but I felt the wonder was mostly lacking. Sometimes, I’d find a skilled writer telling a tale of wonder with a Biblical heart was pretty much an outcast to the CBA because of A or B. Example: 2007’s  WIND FOLLOWER by Carole McDonnell. Inspired in part by some Old Testament familial conflicts, it includes rape and marital conjugal situations. Yeah, that goes over well with the CBA. Never mind Tamar and never mind Solomon and his harem.

So, that was it. Boredom. Didn’t find the quality up-to-snuff when I compared it to what I was reading in the ABA.

I was not alone. I found that out later, though.

This week I asked some simple questions and some readers of CSF answered. Here are snippets of their responses to me on this subject:

“Up until just a couple of years ago (maybe 2010?) I had pretty much given up on Christian speculative fiction. Christian fiction had lost my trust.

It is only recently that it’s starting to gain it back. And not because of anything I’ve seen in the CBA. It’s because of solid storytellers like Mike Duran, Ashley Bazer, Kat Heckenbach, Jill Domschot and Robynn Tolbert. Even some of the more overtly Christian stories, like ones by Kevin Newsome and Ellen C. Maze, I really enjoyed.

The Christian fiction establishment (CBA) isn’t changing enough to really impress me.”

~

“What I’ve noticed is that it’s taken authors publishing outside the CBA to get stuff out there that I enjoy reading. The “spec fic” being published within the CBA feels too much like standard CBA fiction, but with swords and dragons!

I have very little hope that the CBA will embrace real spec-fic. Not the kind that appeals to true geeks. But I also don’t think sending it all to the secular market will work either. I, personally, think a new field needs to emerge. A truly Christian Spec-Fic market all its own. A place where faith meets weird, and authors have the freedom to explore both Christianity in an overt way and to write the kinds of stories real sf/f geeks want to read.”

~

“I grew very dissatisfied with Christian spec fic long ago. I like that I don’t have to wade through a bunch of junk with Christian sf – such as language, world views that I find distasteful (or worse), but I don’t like that so many stories felt like thinly disguised preaching. Yeah, yeah – same ol’ record, I know.

What I’d like to see is just a good story, written by someone with a worldview that doesn’t glorify things that well, shouldn’t be glorified (the story can contain them but there’s a difference between being real and glorifying garbage – and I think you know what I mean by that). No preaching, just a doggoned good story.

And perhaps they’re out there. But I haven’t read any CBA in years, so I don’t know what’s out there right now. I only know what turned me off to buying CBA SF.”

~

The recent publication of Patrick Carr’s The Staff and the Sword series gives me hope that good epic fantasy is making a comeback. I also enjoy reading Mike Duran. He doesn’t shy away from the dark and difficult. I hope this trend continues. Reading about perfect people gets boring. Reading about heroes who have faith, yet fail, gives me hope that I might yet find something heroic within myself.

~

Regarding Christian Spec fic, I think that many novels fall into the typical “end times prophecy” formula, or the “bible story fantasy allegory,” which is boring and repetitive. I’d rather more creative and original dystopian and sci-fi stories. More stories on how Christians would cope living in dystopian society or on another planet – the choices they would make. I have a really hard time with Christian spec fic, as I’m not into angels, and I am sick of the imitations of the Left Behind books. I just don’t read much of it anymore. Sorry to be so negative, but there it is!

~

I’ve noticed the development of a lot of Christian spec fic indie presses. It’s opened a whole new world of “cafes” with their own brands of gourmet coffee–some offering a better cup than others.

My personal favorite is Splashdown. I like Grace’s sense of whimsy, but nothing too light and frothy—hints of rich darkness, too. That is something I’ve noticed with a lot of Christian spec fic. Even the dark stories don’t feel as tortured to me as they might. Dark, but palatable—as though the authors have cleansed souls or something (imagine that). It’s not even the content I’m talking about. I don’t need clean content. It’s the spirit of the work. I loved P.A. Baines. I want to know where his second book is. I have loved Kevin Newsome and, of course, Kat Heckenbach, though YA isn’t my personal favorite.

~

I think the best thing about Christian spec-fic is that it’s moving away from being message-driven.  Before I started reading it, I’d been told that too often it was often Christians vs. The World (the Scientist, The Whatever). Now, the plots are more complex as are the characters and situations. Christianity is, in many cases, simply a defining aspect of the character, much like in secular fantasy, the hero might follow a made-up god or goddess and it’s part of who that person is.

~

Back to Me: These sentiments mirror my own.

Look, I read SF above all for that sense of wonder. Sometimes, I’m after mental stimulation. Sometimes, I’m after some really cool social or religious or psychological or supernatural ideas working themselves out in a skillfully crafted story. I like weird. I like unexpected. I don’t expect a theology lesson in my SF, unless it’s passed on organically, beautifully, even surprisingly. I like pretty, writerly writing. I cannot bear to wade through clunky or lackluster prose. I’ve read SF since the ‘70s. Know what that means? That old hat ideas presented with just as old a chapeau of execution do not work for me. I get bored. Fast.

So, I left. Pretty quietly.

Then the publishing revolution happened while I was gone. I kept one eye on part of it–Marcher Lord Press. I kept the other eye on the other part, one that was even more interesting: the Amazon behemoth’s platform for independent publishers. I kept a hand in judging contests until 2010 or so, and one of the entries was polished and snappy and good. I thought, “This will see print.” And it has.  By a CBA publisher. And readers like it.

Change looks to be good. That small vision the CBA had when it came to SF is now irrelevant to me, the reader; but it cheers me to see more fantasy (even if it’s mostly YA) flying off their presses.

Yes, things are hotting up all over.

I’m excited to see what will be produced sans gatekeepers. Will we finally see our new Nebula-level Christian storytellers set free from CBA constrictions as they self-publish and give us the delights and wonders we have been waiting for–dazzling stories written with unique voices that aren’t afraid to push boundaries while maintaining a Christian heart and spirit? Our next generation of Gene Wolfes and Connie Willises and R.A. Laffertys and Dean Koontzes?

Yes, I think we just might. There’s no one to say NO now.  Writers can’t be stopped at the gate anymore. And if the talent is there, self-published or small-press published, we have to make sure to seek it. Someone will find it and tell us, be it on Twitter or Facebook or Goodreads or other emerging places.  Be it HERE, on this site, in enthusiastic reviews. We should look for them. We should tell each other when they show up. Pass the good word. The reader is now the caller at the gate.

This is not 2006. I am heartened. The revolution we wanted to see in the CBA will happen, is happening, just not where we imagined it must happen. We can’t be snobs who think only legacy publishers have the goods.

These are exciting times for readers (and writers) of Christian Speculative Fiction. I think we can come back now, with hope. We don’t have to be exiles. Keep your eyes open. Tell me when you spot something that will rock my world.  Comment with your recommendations and tell me WHY I should read it, WHY it’s fresh, and WHY it’s as good as anything in the ABA. Don’t just post links or books names. Gimme a reason. Tell me why you’re passionate.

I’m listening. Again.

After all, it’s St. Valentine’s Day. A good day to rekindle love, even for a subgenre.

~~~

For those interested, here are AMAZON LINKS to books/authors mentioned or recommended by those who responded to my questions:

http://www.amazon.com/Mike-Duran/e/B0041XH5R8/

http://www.amazon.com/Keven-Newsome/e/B00539FFXK/

http://www.amazon.com/Kat-Heckenbach/e/B0042QM3YO/

http://www.amazon.com/Robynn-Tolbert/e/B007YQ9Q9O/

http://www.amazon.com/Ashley-Hodges-Bazer/e/B0091ZNAGQ/

http://www.amazon.com/Jill-Domschot/e/B00COADHAO/

http://www.amazon.com/Ellen-C-Maze/e/B002YWH2TY/

www.amazon.com/Patrick-W.-Carr/e/B00B6CP650/

http://www.amazon.com/P.A.-Baines/e/B004FUEAPC/

http://www.amazon.com/Carole-McDonnell/e/B0034Q3BWG/

http://www.splashdownbooks.com/

The Hollywood Reporter has an update on the upcoming Noah film by Darren Aronofsky.

From this excerpt, the film sounds not-so-great.

[Paramount Pictures vice chair Rob] Moore says Aronofsky’s Noah is not in the more literal vein of the blockbuster Bible series produced for the History channel by Mark Burnett and Roma Downey. “They’ve been very effective in terms of communicating to and being embraced by a Christian audience,” says Moore. “This movie has a lot more creativity to it. And therefore, if you want to put it on the spectrum, it probably is more accurate to say this movie is inspired by the story of Noah.”

From this excerpt, the film sounds more promising:

Aronofsky, who grew up in a conservative Jewish household, says his goal from the start was to make a Noah for everyone. For nonbelievers, he wanted to create “this fantastical world a la Middle-earth that they wouldn’t expect from their grandmother’s Bible school.” At the same time, he wanted to make a film for those “who take this very, very seriously as gospel.”

So what if the film somehow manages to be both these things?

Though I haven’t seen the Burnett/Downey Bible series Moore mentioned, I understand that series also takes liberties with Biblical details — but sticks to the central Story. Other Biblical films play loose with details but keep the central themes of Scripture, such as The Ten Commandments or The Prince of Egypt (based on Exodus), One Night With the King (based on Esther) and any film based on the Gospels.

That’s all I want from Noah, based on this film-adaptation checklist I incidentally made up in a review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

1. Is the film as close as possible to the book’s details?
2. Is the film as close as possible to the book’s themes?
3. Does the film at least not contradict the book’s details?
4. Does the film at least not contradict the book’s themes?
5. If none of the above: is it at least something the author could have written in a parallel universe?

More chariot races and sibling rivalry — but God in The Prince of Egypt is much as He is in the original Story.

How could Noah pass or fail this film-adaptation checklist?

1. If Noah’s title character drinks, that’s defensible by step 1 (and step 3). Scripture does show Noah drunk after the Flood (Gen. 9: 18–29).
2. If the story indeed shows hope for humanity through a central salvation, even with a flawed hero, Noah passes step 2.
3. If the film shows Noah as a fantasy hero, Christians should have no objection. Scripture doesn’t describe the famed boat-builder’s occupation at all. But if the film blends Shem and/or Ham and/or Japheth into one character, that does violate no. 3 — just like every other film based on the Bible. (The Ten Commandments: Pharaoh exiles Moses. Prince of Egypt: not-yet pharaoh Rameses offers to cover up for Moses.) Christians disagree on this, but in my view the film hasn’t utterly failed yet. There’s still step 4.
4. The film could overall fail at this step. Unlike with manmade films — whose mangling of their original story themes I can only occasionally tolerate — I cannot abide a story based on Scripture that can’t get the themes right. So if Noah indeed focuses on “overpopulation” (a modern myth that never even mentioned in the Genesis account) or even worse, portrays a God Whose nature is contradictory or Who flirts with destroying humanity entirely, that would sink this ship.
5. Noah can’t even swim to shore clinging to my no. 5 flotsam, because Christians believe our God wrote this story into reality. He would never have written another one, especially one in which He Himself acted differently. (All the best stories, if they include God at all, will copy Him verbatim from the God of the Bible.)

Yet for the sake of great storytelling based on the greatest true-life Story, I hope Noah does swims strong — and draws intrigued viewers to the original Source, the eternal Word.

Sorry to have disappeared on you, folks. Part of the reason why is because I was in the middle of overhauling my personal website. Go take a gander and kick the tires if you want. I like it. It is, to quote Malcolm Reynolds, shiny.

But now that I’m out of that particular corner of cyberspace, I figured I’d better come back here and talk about the monster on my bookshelf. It’s been glaring at me lately. And growing. Oh, yes. It’s growing ever larger.

It’s my to-be-read pile.

I know, I know, we all have them. That stack of books that we’re intending to read when we just get the chance. I do my level best to prune it back regularly, but it still continues to multiply.

Here’s a picture of it in its natural habitat:

I know, it doesn’t look all that threatening right now. I was able to sneak a picture when it was resting. But I think the flash of my camera angered it, for it rose up and called on its ally, my Kindle, which contains even more books that are waiting to be read. And when I saw my to-be-read pile in its full glory, my friends, I shuddered. In the spirit of adventure, though, I managed to take another picture before I ran screaming for cover:

A truly awe-inspiring sight.

Okay, so I’m being a little silly. But I do honestly get intimidated by my pile at times. I manage to thin the herd, only to have more pop up. It’s like fighting the mythical hydra. As a matter of fact, Patrick Carr’s A Draw of Kings arrived in the mail the day I took those pictures. By the time this posts, another book may have arrived as well.

It’s a sickness, I tell you. I just like having a lot of options to read. That’s why I’m grateful for my Goodreads account. I can keep track of all the books I have, either digitally or tucked away on a shelf, waiting to be read.

So how about you? What’s on the top of your to-be-read pile right now? And are there any books you think I should add to mine? Let me know in the comments below.

A television news station, WCNC, in Charlotte, NC, ran an interesting story on February 8th, titled “Elevation pastor sells books from pulpit.” In that article, James Duncan, an assistant professor of Communications at Anderson University, is quoted saying in reference to getting on best seller lists:

“So you’ve got this explosion of sales and it looks like this is the most amazing book,” said Duncan. “Totally they gamed the system.”

“People in publishing know it’s a game,” said Duncan.

It is common knowledge that publishers buy front-store space for their select “bestsellers.”

They buy prime slots on the home pages of Barnes & Noble’s and Kobo’s sites. Through pre-ordering they can ensure a month or two of sales get compressed into one week for a better chance at hitting the bestseller lists, though they are starting to lose this advantage.

For years the readers have often used the bestseller lists to check for books they would like to read. But have readers using these list been manipulated all these years by publishers? Would those “bestsellers” be such if put on an equal footing with other books?

Some might point at the indie publishing movement as the solution. There is no doubt a lot of books are coming out that venue that traditional publishers wouldn’t have taken. Some of them qualified to be published. The reader would tend to think this more democratized process would weed out manipulating readers by “gatekeepers.”

Then we remember all the sock-puppet reviews, the paid-for-reviews. How many “marketing” books have come out which amount to nothing more than how to game Amazon’s best seller list calculations to climb on top?

Where there’s money, there will be manipulators of any system.

Even if that system is a church. In this case, a mega-church.

“Almost all the mega churches – their pastors tend to have books,” said Brewster. (Sally Brewster, a veteran independent bookseller at Park Road Books in Charlotte.)

I wonder how many of them hawk their books from the pulpit? That’s what I would have a problem with. To be fair, the pastor claims he makes no money off books sold in and through his church, nor do any of the books bought for the church through his author discount count toward bestseller’s lists. However, the church is making money from the books. There is always the chance he is getting a hidden kickback in his “salary”.

But this doesn’t let the pastor off the hook, in my opinion. For one, the money-changers and sellers in the temple that Jesus chased out with a whip were earning money for the temple. If nothing else, the publishing house is earning money from church sales. That the church earns money but not the pastor doesn’t justify it.

The bigger issue is manipulation.

It may be a fine line to walk at times between promotion and manipulation. However, standing before one, two or more thousand people on Sunday morning as their pastor and using that position of influence to sell books, looks and smells like manipulation to me. I don’t say he shouldn’t mention it, but not from the pulpit. Maybe the Church newsletter, or his Facebook page. But a church service is God’s time, not his. He’s speaking on behalf of God from the pulpit. Or should be.

Do you as a reader feel you’ve been manipulated in what to read? How do you ensure that doesn’t happen to you? Have you experienced “selling in the temple” before, and if so, how did you feel about it?

Harry Potter is once again in the news. Or at least his creator, J. K. Rowling, is. It seems she’s had second thoughts about the resolution of her seven-book epic fantasy series. As fans of the books and/or movies know, in an epilogue to book 7, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, the protagonist, Harry Potter, grows up to marry, not the girl with whom he’d shared so many of his adventures, but Ron’s younger sister, Ginny.

And what became of Hermione? She marries Ron, Harry’s good friend who also accompanied them on many of their clashes with Lord Voldemort and his cohorts.

Now, it seems, J. K. Rowling, having gained perspective in the intervening seven years since the final book released, thinks she made a mistake.

“I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment. That’s how it was conceived, really,” Rowling says in the interview. “For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione ended up with Ron.”

“I know, I’m sorry,” she adds. “I can hear the rage and fury it might cause some fans, but if I’m absolutely honest, distance has given me perspective on that. It was a choice I made for very personal reasons, not for reasons of credibility. Am I breaking people’s hearts by saying this? I hope not.” (CNN Entertainment, “JK Rowling says Hermione should have married Harry Potter, not Ron” by Saeed Ahmed(

Interestingly, as I re-read four of the books this past Christmas, I began to notice places and ways that Harry’s relationship with Ginny developed.

You see, I was one who went through the entire seven books holding out hope that Harry and Hermione would get together. I read the resolution with some sense of dissatisfaction. Yes, I was glad they all lived, grew up, found love and purpose, stayed friends . . . but, Hermione and Harry were best friends really, closer in many respects than Harry and Ron, so I wanted to see them fall in love.

During my latest partial re-read, however, I saw the seeds of lasting relationships, both with Ron and Hermione and with Harry and Ginny.

Imagine my surprise, then, when this latest news came out. From all this I’ve learned a couple things: first, I don’t think Rowling sold Ron and Hermione’s relationship as much as she could have. At the same time, I don’t think she sold Harry and Ginny’s relationship at all. The tender shoots of a lasting relationship are there, as I discovered this past December, but they are so tender, it’s easy to believe that something stronger could crowd them out. And I firmly believed Harry and Hermione’s relationship was stronger. They’d been through so much together, sacrificed for each other, believed in each other.

However, I’d adjusted to the end J. K. Rowling conceived . . . until this past week when she retracted her imagined resolution. Which brings me to the second thing I’ve learned: after a novelist puts “The End” to a story, she needs to shut up and sit down and let the story speak for itself. She doesn’t need to tell her fans that she sees Dumbledore as gay or that she made a mistake with the resolution. The story is what it is now and has already played on the hearts and minds of readers, as is. Changing it now doesn’t work. Telling readers how to interpret characters, doesn’t work.

So here’s how I’m thinking about this “who should Harry have married” issue: He should have married Hermione, but he didn’t. No point wishing he had.

What are your thoughts? Did you see Hermione and Ron’s relationship coming or did you think she belonged with Harry? Do you think Rowling has made the story less satisfying by saying she got the end wrong or do you feel justified in wishing it were different?

Recent successful series such as Stephen Lawhead’s Bright Empires Series (The Skin Map, The Bone House, The Spirit Well, The Shadow Lamp) utilize one of the most common staples of Christian speculative fiction: parallel worlds. The idea of such parallel worlds is not a new one. George MacDonald in Phantastes used such a device. His writing influenced C. S. Lewis to develop his stories of a land called Narnia, accessible through a wardrobe. MacDonald’s writing also influenced Tolkien, Chesterton, and Mark Twain.

The current works of Christian speculative fiction (CSF) authors are rich with this idea. I asked myself why. Why has the parallel universe/world literary device become so popular in CSF? And, the possibility of such universes/worlds raises even more significant questions for CSF authors and readers. If such universes exist, what is God’s role in those universes? Does God have a different plan for His creation in other universes? Does sin exist there? If so, how would God handle the atonement issue in another universe? More importantly, for any well-informed Christian, is this central question: Does the presence of a multiverse do away with the necessity of a Creator God? After all, with an infinite number of universes, ours just might be the one universe in which, purely by chance, life has developed and we really don’t need a God to bring it all into existence!

Don’t underestimate that last concept. The multiverse is the latest attempt by naturalists (scientists and philosophers who base their worldview on Darwinism and materialism) to kill God. Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have both written books in recent years that show how our universe came into existence purely by chance, and there is no need for an Uncaused Cause! Why would they spend so much time and effort to disprove God if God doesn’t exist?

Wait a minute, Bruce. You are talking some mumbo jumbo here. This is a post for CSF authors and readers. You are veering into the territory of hard science and philosophy and apologetics. What does that have to do with fiction?

Our own Rebecca Luella Miller had this to say about CSF (emphasis mine):

Christian speculative fiction is written by a Christian, but not everything written by Christians qualifies as ‘Christian.’ Rather some element of the story needs to be distinctly connected with what it means to be Christian. Perhaps the characters are predominantly Christian. The plot might revolve around something distinctly Christian. Or the themes may relate in a specific way to the Christian faith.

And here is the point that separates Christian fiction, I believe, from all other fiction. Christian fiction speaks the truth about God. Other fiction can speak the truth about morals or the way the world works or what makes a person love or hate or live on the edge. Other fiction might be silent about God. Other fiction might speak a lie (though undoubtedly the author believes that what he’s written is true) about any of these things. Only Christian fiction speaks the truth about God.

Ah, there is that pesky word, truth. Wait a minute, more than that–Truth with a capital T. And, to speak to the existence of a transcendent Truth in today’s postmodern, relativistic society is very dangerous for the speaker. But, isn’t that our mission as Christian storytellers? Aren’t we supposed to convey the Truth through our story? And shouldn’t our story be part of the big Story God is unfolding around us (also known as the meta-narrative)? Otherwise, what makes us any different from Stephen King or George R. R. Martin (Game of Thrones) or any current science fiction writer? I’ll tell you. We, alone, have Hope, Purpose, and Destiny on our side and our stories MUST convey the Truth contained in the Christian worldview. Can we do that by using the foundational concept of the multiverse and not betray our God?

My suggestion is a radical idea. The possible existence of a multiverse does NOT rule out the existence of God. In fact, the multiverse is a very powerful evidence FOR the God of the Bible. Now, understand that the existence and nature of the multiverse is purely theoretical since we can never, according to science, prove the existence of a multiverse. But we have to understand what kind of creature a multiverse is. Let’s define the different types of multiverses that are proposed by physicists.

According to Jeff Zweerink of the organization Reasons to Believe, (from his booklet, “Who’s Afraid of the Multiverse?”) there are four accepted types of multiverses that MIGHT exist:

Level I: There exist regions, beyond our observable universe but similar in size, which exhibit the same laws of physics but start with different initial conditions. Basically, this affirms that the universe does not end just beyond the most distant regions we can observe. The only controversial issue at this level pertains to the size of the region beyond our observable universe. If the universe is closed, the geometry of the observable universe (very close to flat) provides a minimum size for the whole universe of a few thousand times our observable universe. However, if the current formulations of how inflation works contain any truth, these models generically predict that the spatial extent of the universe is infinite.

Level II: There exist other bubble universes that obey the same equations of physics but with different fundamental constants, particles, and dimensionality. This level differs from Level I in that many universes (not just the one where we reside) actually exist inside their own inflating bubbles. Whereas all the regions outside our observable universe in Level I obey the same laws of physics with the same fundamental constants, each Level II bubble universe obeys the same laws of physics but the fundamental constants assume different values than those from our universe.

Level III: This level corresponds to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics put forth by Hugh Everett. The relevant feature of this level pertains to the physical basis for quantum events. When determining what happens at the quantum level, the best one can do is assign a probability for each of multiple different outcomes. Basically, the many-worlds interpretation says that for each quantum event, a “history” or “world” actually exists where each of the possible outcomes is realized.

Level IV: This level posits that any mathematically coherent structure defines a physical reality. Obviously, this leads to universes with completely different laws of physics. No Level V can exist because Level IV encompasses all possibilities.

Okay, so try and wrap your brains around those explanations. More than likely, we do exist in a Level I multiverse which simply means that the observable universe is smaller than the actually universe since light traveling from the beginning of time has been outrun by the expansion of the universe. However, most parallel world stories utilize a form of Level III with the basic tenet being that at some point, there is a branching of realities creating an alternate version of our universe that has diverged from our reality. And, many CSF stories utilize a Level II universe where the laws of physics are the same as ours. As to Level IV, it’s pretty far out there in concept so we won’t worry about it. Suffice it to say, most CSF alternate world stories use a Level II or Level III multiverse.

So, does the multiverse disprove the existence of God? Zweerink has this to say:

Generally, the “cosmological argument” is articulated like this:

.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
.  The universe began to exist.
.  Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The relatively recent discovery of the universe’s beginning surprised many scientists because they assumed the universe was eternal. In fact, the singular beginning implied by big bang cosmology readily supports the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

And here is the most important question. Does the multiverse model eliminate the beginning with a capital B?

The multiverse argues that creation existed prior to the big bang. While the details are too specific to include here, all viable multiverse models still require a beginning! Although these models make the issue more complex and nuanced, the fundamental Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo still stands on firm ground. In fact, research into multiverse alternatives to a single universe has made the case for a beginning even more robust than big bang cosmology alone.

Bottom Line: Go ahead and write about those alternate worlds and universes. But, be careful. As authors of CSF conveying the Truth in our stories, we must be extremely canny with world building. To stray away from the Truth of historical Christianity’s tenets, even in a parallel world, would give credence to a universal theology. Here, we must be very, very careful. After all, a prudent study of early church heresies reveals just this type of fiction: tweaking the Truth into a version that suits our human thought processes and needs.

We can indulge in the possibilities of multiple worlds and universes, but let us be very careful with the worlds we build. C. S. Lewis’ Narnia is rich with the foundational concepts of Christian theism. And, we can do this, too. Let us remember that in writing our stories about parallel worlds and alternate universes, we are appealing to a secular audience. By imbedding the values of Christian theism in our stories, we bring Truth to their awareness. This is our calling in Christian Speculative Fiction as Becky stated above. Above all else, we must tell the Truth!

I encourage all authors and readers to develop a firm foundation in the defense of the Christian faith: apologetics. I have a list of resources on my website under the Apologetics tab for using apologetics in fiction. I list some very good starting points. In fact, I am putting together a book for Christian fiction authors of questions and answers from apologetics. I can use your help in putting it together. To help, submit those nagging questions that keep you awake at night. Or, if you are an author and you are stymied as to handle an issue of science, history, or philosophy, send me your question. But, be patient. I may not answer right away and the emphasis here is on compiling a list of the general concepts we need as authors of Christian speculative fiction. Just go to my website and the Apologetics’ tab and fill out the comment form in the Apologetics tab. Send me your questions. I’ll try my best to point you in the right direction, and who knows, I might get a Fiction Apologetics website up and running.

Just remember, the world thinks of us as ignorant, superstitious fools. Prove them wrong! Be informed. Do your research. Write the Truth! And, don’t be afraid of the multiverse!

– – – – –

Bruce Hennigan grew up in Northwest Louisiana and became a physician practicing in the field of radiology. He was a church drama director for fifteen years and wrote over 150 plays. He is a certified apologist–one who defends the truthfulness of the Christian faith–and speaks on this topic on a regular basis.

Hennigan co-authored Conquering Depression: A Thirty Day Plan to Finding Happiness with Mark Sutton, published by B & H Publishing in 2001. An updated version, Hope Again: A 30 Day Plan for Conquering Depression, will be released by B&H in September, 2014. He is also the author of the supernatural thriller novels in the Chronicles of Jonathan Steel series–The 13th Demon: Altar of the Spiral Eye; The 12th Demon: Mark of the Wolf Dragon; and The 11th Demon: The Ark of Chaos.

He has two grown children and lives in Shreveport with his wife, Sherry. For more information, check out his website. To learn more about the Chronicles of Jonathan Steel, visit the series website.

If I do it right, this column will address three topics — the meaning of “Christian” from last week’s discussion, why we can enjoy “unsafe” stories, and why stories need good theology as argued here — all in one column. And all for the sake of making us all happier.

Which, to spoil the ending, is exactly the answer for why I should want to do anything.

1. The Ultimate Answer of (Christian) Life

Yes, I’m “hitchhiking” for the title, yet also for this famous argument.

Lost in last week’s comment discussion, and particularly my defense of defining the term “Christian,” was this truth often unspoken, which must be spoken far more often:

I believe things like “the word Christian has certain meanings and non-meanings” and “God fully reveals Himself in His Word and in Christ out of love” not because I simply believe it’s obeying God (though it does obey Him), or to be clever, or to win friends.

I don’t even do this just because I believe it’s my God-given duty (yet this is also true).

Rather, I should want to do this solely because only in so doing can I approach everlasting, pure, unadulterated, blazing, color-shining, full-orbed, eternal, God-glorifying happiness.

2. The Ultimate Answer of Fiction Universes

Last week’s column also ended without a conclusion. I suppose I enjoyed it more that way.

Its unspoken question was: having confirmed that no genre of story is “safe” for Christian fans, why should we have anything do with stories in the first place?

You may be a hemline-measuring cultural fundamentalist or a grity-and-violence-loving art critic. Either way, you would likely answer according to one of these four reasons:

• Entertainment. “It’s just a story.” (My response: then why do we care to defend it?)
• Edification. “Stories show Good Moral Examples.” (Then read the Bible or a biography.)
• Education. “This helps me learn about X.” (Try a textbook; it offers far less confusion.)
• Evangelism. “By supporting this — select one: A) gritty and ‘realistic’ B) sentimental and ‘wholesome’ — story, I reach out to my non-Christian neighbors who otherwise think that Christianity is — select one: A) too sentimental and ‘wholesome’ B) too gritty and ‘realistic.’ (But fiction is useless and boring if only in service to Evangelism.)

Just like a Christian’s work for God is never less than a duty, but is more than that, my reasons for reading, enjoying, defending, and trying to write fiction are based in this:

Story’s chief end is to help me glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

In other words: I’m chasing eternal happiness in God. Stories help me do that. Therefore, stories have meaning — meanings that include all four of those E-words, but are far greater.

I needn’t feel forced to enjoy or promote a story because it will be Wholesome or Gritty and impress the pagan neighbors who have whatever preconceptions about Christianity.

I also needn’t feel guilty if I read a story that other Christians wrongly condemn as “unsafe” or cannot themselves honestly enjoy. As long as I’m truly worshiping Christ (even subtly) in this enjoyment and not being personally tempted to sin, I’m free. It is a perfect freedom.

Without this view of freedom, I believe we’ll end up back in slavery. We’ll drift toward other, lesser reasons for excusing stories — reasons closely related to that worldliness or legalism that you thought you left far behind. We may become like the human patient in The Screwtape Letters whose demons tempt him not to read books for the simple pleasure of enjoying them, but for Hellishly “pragmatic” ends. Screwtape devilishly instructs:

The man who truly and disinterestedly enjoys any one thing in the world, for its own sake, and without caring twopence what other people say about it, is by that very fact fore-armed against some of our subtlest modes of attack. You should always try to make the patient abandon the people or food or books he really likes in favour of the “best” people, the “right” food, the “important” books.

I don’t want to become that person. So I chase after “disinterested” enjoyment — which is really another way to say that I want to enjoy things the way I would if sin never existed.

3. The Ultimate Answer of Everything

Great stories not only become greater with theology, they require theology because of the definition of “theology.” Theology = God-ology. The study and knowledge of God, which always, always leads to head-over-heels adoration of God. To know Him is to love Him. To love Him is to know true pleasure and joy. To know true pleasure and joy is to be happy, truly happy, no matter what suffering or criticism or made-up moral rules may come.

The greatest stories make people happier. God makes people the happiest.

Therefore the truly greatest stories show us more of God.

Anything less can only bring self-hating, enslaved, joyless living.

Paranormal/suspense novelist Mike Duran is concerned concerned that some Christians want to ban zombies. Worse, Duran suggests, some Christians would wrongfully tie a chain of theology around the ankle of speculative stories before they can even make it out the gate.

Forcing fiction to neatly fit your theology is a losing proposition… at least, if creative storytelling is your aim.

[…]

I have long argued that one of the inherent problems with Christian speculative fiction is that Christian spec-fic, by its very nature, cannot be speculative enough. We impose overly strict theological expectations on our fiction.

Such as the paranormal novelist’s take on our Friday feature “How Then Can It Be Christian?” by James Somers.

On Friday the Fallen author cited The Shack‘s anti-Biblical conception of God’s nature.

God is viewed as being completely different in nature than we find him in the pages of scripture. He is viewed as not caring about a person’s sin, or being concerned with judgment–all of which are heretical views.

He goes on to say:

Likewise, we should never present a view of the world that contradicts God’s Word. Should we fill our pages with characters who believe that evolution is truth and there is no Creator God? […]

Rebecca LuElla Miller’s balanced interaction was on Monday. She noted:

[…] Spurred by Mike’s thinking, I have long argued against both of his conclusions (which he also stated in posts such as “Can Christian Theology And Speculative Fiction Coexist?”): 1) that a Biblical framework must by definition limit our imagination (and in this stance, I’m also disagreeing with James Somer’s position regarding what specifically falls into the category of misrepresenting the way the Bible shows our world), and 2) that Christians ought not “impose overtly strict theological expectations on our fiction.”

Here’s an indirect sequel to focus on this central point:

In speculative stories, Christians must not confuse God’s nature with God’s real world.

I wonder if authors Somers and Duran may have both accidentally slipped on rolling apples and compared them to oranges:

1. Showing the real world’s nature differently in a story is fine.
2. Showing God’s nature differently in a story is wrong (and it makes for a poorer story).

In general I’m not bothered by Somers’ statement (“we should never present a view of the world that contradicts God’s Word”). Yes, someone may say, “Stories shouldn’t contradict the Bible,” and may truly mean that speculative stories must be banned or constricted because they change the nature of the world. But others simply mean, “Christian stories shouldn’t contradict the nature of God, including His holiness, love, omni-everything power, and plan of saving grace from evil.”

That’s the point of my comment here. And I do claim this is the Biblical view based on one very prime Example.

Eh, I’m not worried about this either way.

If someone says a story’s theology should not contradict God’s Word, I chalk that up to him/her striving to be faithful to our personal Savior. [Otherwise] any fiction could be said to “be contradictory to God’s Word” because God’s Word describes reality, which fiction isn’t, no matter how contemporary.

What I think such folks are actually trying to say is that a work of fiction, by a Christian, should not end up tweaking God’s Nature or salvation.

You can invent a world in which down is up or water is dry. But do not, as a Christian, invent a world in which if God exists (e.g. if the story touches on this) then He is evil, or else non-omnipotent, cruel, ignorant, etc.

Ergo: ghosts are allowed [as in Duran’s debut novel The Resurrection]. A cruel spiteful or stupid God is not.

Source: Jesus Christ Himself. He told stories in which God is often absent. Or if He is absent, He is seen acting in what is arguably Christ’s work of fiction — e.g. the boastful rich man of Luke 12. But four chapters later comes what is perhaps the great Storyteller’s most fanciful-sounding tale, of another rich man who dies, enters Sheoul, and is yet somehow able to converse with Abraham across the divide with the “good side” of the grave. Jesus here changes the “rules” of the real world. And yet God’s nature remains intact.

Someday I’ll work on this idea more, originally suggested in this 2012 column.

No matter how other a world is, the God of that world must always be the same.

You can make up a world called htra’E, or Narnia, or a parallel Earth in which children live before coming to Narnia, or Middle-earth, or even the parallel Earth of Harry Potter.

But if God will be at all involved in that world, He must be like the true God.

Otherwise, we horribly break His rules. Otherwise, we present another, and false, Jesus.

Advocates for “mature” Christian fiction often point to the Bible as proving their point. They point out that the Scripture is full of violence, sex, and contains some examples of course language. Indeed, the case can be made that this is true. But does the Bible really fit the mold it is being forced into? Is it really the same as an R-rated, mature material?

What is “mature content”?

I don’t know that I’ve heard a good definition of the phrase presented in terms of fiction written by Christians. Jeff Gerke’s warning for the old Hinterlands imprint would give us a starting point.

Hinterlands books may contain vulgarity, profanity, nudity and/or sexual content, but never for gratuitous purposes.

Of course, this doesn’t draw any lines. Sexual content could mean anything from a couple indicating they are going to have sex to a full graphic description of the act. But based on Jeff’s statements from his guest article on SpecFaith back in January of last year, he relates the term as the equivalent of an R-rated movie in content.

Many Christians need to avoid R-rated movies, but some Christians can watch such movies and not stumble. That doesn’t mean anything about who has more or less worth to Christ, because that’s the same for both. It just means that there are Christians who can handle, and even desire to explore, stories with this sort of content. They can be grittier and, in some senses, more realistic.

When writers and readers talk about mature content, their boundaries would usually coincide with an R-rating on a movie.

So mature content means it is not G-rated, PG-rated, or even PG-13-rated. So what crosses the line from a PG-13 to an R? From the Motion Picture Association of America’s rating descriptions.

Sex:

More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. . . . An R-rated motion picture may include . . . sexually-oriented nudity . . .

Violence:

There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. . . . An R-rated motion picture may include . . . intense or persistent violence . . .

Profanity/Vulgarity:

A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. . . . An R-rated motion picture may include . . . hard language . . .

The language boundary would fit movies or book without any adjustment, but sexual and violence boundaries are different. To translate from visual media to printed media, it is obvious the difference is explicitness. That is, if you can read the same level of detail to form a picture as an R-rated movie, then you’ve crossed over into mature content.

For example, in Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Lord of the Rings into film, he had to keep it at a PG-13 rating. So he could show heads getting chopped off, but he couldn’t show blood spewing out as would be more realistic (from his comments on the extended version commentary).

So is the Bible R-rated?

It certainly contains sexual situations, violence, and some would say cussing. But do they cross the line into R territory?

If we take the above boundary, the level of detail, especially in relation to violence and sexuality, would determine if it is an R or PG-13. The more a book would show rather than tell, the more likely it is to cross over into mature content.

Let’s examine it in relation to the Bible.

Sex:

There are plenty of incidences of sex in Scripture, but none that are described in detail. The closest one gets to that is the Song of Solomon. However, it does so in an allegory, keeping the curtain’s closed, so to speak. Indeed, it has been interpreted in other ways than speaking of sex.

What you usually have, however, is very much telling. So-and-so knew his wife, and she conceived—type statement. No where in Scripture does it give a graphic, detailed account of a sex act. On the sex category, it would not be consider sexually-oriented nudity, and so not R-rated.

Violence:

Most all references in Scripture concerning violence is told, not shown. We don’t get depictions of blood gushing out, or other such details. The most one gets is bowels:

Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. (Act 1:18 KJV)

There are two or three more instances in the OT of this description. It is still pretty telly, but does give more detail that paints a clearer picture in the reader’s mind. Certainly much less detail than a novel describing the event might have.

But does that make it “realistic and extreme” violence? It is still too telling and not showing to be a realistic depiction, which would describe the bursting open, the blood, descriptions of the guts, and how the person feels either experiencing it or watching it. To simply say “his bowels gushed out” isn’t much different than saying someone cut off his head. No description, no R-rating.

Profanity/Vulgarity:

While Scripture doesn’t drop the equivalent of an F-bomb, there is some “harsh language” going on, as someone details on a forum post. I’m not totally convinced that the people then would have thought of them as profanity (too easy for us to overlay our culture’s values onto theirs).

For instance, Jesus calls the Pharisees, vipers. One might consider that name calling, but I don’t think it’s an explicative or profanity. Several listed in the article are questionable.

But it is a difficult task to sort out. Some of those could have been considered cuss words of the day. Like the use of the word, “dung.” He claims it is the equivalent of a couple of our words for it used as an explicative. However, it is not clear that it is being used as an explicative in the verse he cites:

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ… (Philippians 3:8, KJV)

Paul may have simply meant it literally, not as an explicative. That said, Paul does give the judaizers, in his letter to Galatians, some harsh words:

I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision. (Gal 5:12 ASV)

Oh that those who disturb you would even castrate themselves! (Gal 5:12 EMTV)

Based on the above, it is possible that some words and phrases, at the time, might be considered profanity or vulgarity.

That said, none of those words today would give a movie an R-rating. Even the castration comment. If any of them were considered profanity back in the day, they certainly don’t today. Even if we could point to some profanity, we have no way of knowing how strong it was considered then. It takes some strong language to get an R-rating. Minor cussing won’t do it.

There are no F-bomb equivalents in Scripture.

The Scripture would be rated PG-13.

Based on my assessment, one could not make the case that the Scriptures would garner an R-rating, as it is simply too much telling, and very little showing on both sex and violence. Any cuss words, if they could be labeled such, are likely mild in the Bible’s culture, and certainly mild to non-existent in today’s.

If the criteria for declaring something mature content is to earn an R-rating, the Scriptures don’t make the cut. This is not the mature content you are looking for. Consequently, those who wish to hold up the Bible as an example and support for mature content in fiction will find little to grab hold of here. Merely saying it happened does not make it R-rated.

What a PG-13 rating does tell us is the Bible can be used as support to mention people having sex, violence, and even minor, infrequent cussing. As some have said accurately, the Bible would not be approved to be sold in CBA stores if it were just a book like any other. Too many instances of sex and the occult to make it past the censors.

While I may be saying that one cannot point to the Bible as a justification and example of mature content, I’m not saying this excludes the possibility that mature content can’t be warranted and permissible to write and read, within limits. It isn’t inherently anti-Biblical, though on an individual basis, that depends on what all is shown. There are other arguments for and against mature content, and I’ve not dealt with those here. So don’t assume from this I’m anti-mature content.

Would you define mature content differently? Do you have examples from Scripture that you believe would be classified as worthy of an R-rating that I’ve missed?