Nope. Sorry. Ted and I are acquaintances (I'd say we're friends, but that may be stretching it a little bit -- however, we're certainly friendly when we see each other). There's a lot of mutual respect between Ted and me. He's a fine writer who tells a great story and has built a remarkably successful career. I particularly appreciate the fact that Ted has helped take CBA fiction in new directions. I just didn't happen to agree with what he said about romance novelists in general, and Love Inspired authors in particular. Since he felt he could post on the topic, I felt I could respond. But I assure you, there's no bad blood between us. So relax, people. The two of us aren't going to be having a Celebrity Death Match or anything.
Yes, I think his writing has gotten awfully dark recently. And no, I don't believe his books are moving readers toward a deeper spirituality (no matter how many irate college students write to tell me so). But that's not a personal attack, it's just this one agent's opinion. Ted could just as easily write and say, "Chip has represented a bunch of romance novelists, health books, and business/finance stuff, so HE'S not helping American Christians deepen their spiritual lives either!" And I'd plead guilty, I suppose, even though I'm very proud of the authors I represent. (And no, he won't do that. Trust me. Ted isn't taking this as personally as some of his followers.) But that DOES bring up the notion of followers, and it's a topic I've wanted to write about for some time...
Take a look at the comments after Ted's post. "Amen!" "You de man!" "This is brilliant!" Then, after he apologized to the Love Inspired authors, he got a fresh batch of "Fantastic!" "Brilliant stuff!" and "What a wonderful human being you are." It makes you wonder how saying one thing, then apologizing for it, can solicit the same attaboy responses. I have great respect for Mike Hyatt, the Prez at Thomas Nelson, and I read his wonderful blog faithfully, but I can't help but smile at the list of folks who regularly go on and comment "Mike -- you're the most amazing man in publishing!" I mean, sometimes he writes about fish tacos, and they'll still call him a genius. (And, to be fair, I sometimes have people comment on my own blog in ways that make me think, "You know... I really wasn't THAT brilliant.") My point is just that people seem to become fans of certain individuals, and it might blind them a bit. I know I could have a reasoned dialogue with Ted (or Mike) about a disagreement... I'm not sure I feel the same way about some of the followers.
Here's why this is important to me: I worry about people getting so wrapped up in a personality they lose perspective. I had two kids graduate from Seattle Pacific University, and I noticed when on campus there were students who seemed to think this guy who pastors a mega-church in the area walks on water. Honestly, the students acted like mindless drones -- "Pastor is above reproach..." You could NOT criticize him or they'd start attacking. I found the whole thing sort of scary. I had a chance to talk with that pastor a couple times, and found him to be an arrogant blowhard with a need to continually remind us what a tough and virile superman he is. He said at least two things to me that were obvious exaggerations, but the sycophants around him kept laughing and offering verbal slaps on the back. He was anti-education, borrowed his view on women from Neanderthals, and basically gave me the impression he had zero accountability in his life. In short, the guy was a putz. But no matter how much you explain that to his followers, they think he's Mr. Wonderful. And I fear going there. I fear ever having people act that way toward me, since I'll be the first to tell you that I do NOT know everything, do NOT always set a good example, and do NOT want the responsibility of being the last word on everything in publishing.
Just thought I'd mention that, as we talk about the decisions and directions of publishing today. On to more interesting stuff: Thomas Nelson has jumped into the low-price fiction wars (or maybe they decided to help smaller booksellers jump into that war) by offering four backlist titles at only $2.99. [Earlier versions of this post said "frontlist" titles. My mistake.] Yeah, that won't leave any money at all for the writer, but what a great way to get some market attention and build a readership. Love this idea. ("Mike Hyatt is a genius!") :o)
If you're looking for an agent, WEbook, which was launched a little more than a year ago as a collaborative site for writers, has added a new service that links authors and agents. The agents make themselves available for authors to send them materials, authors learn to shape the proposals according to editorial guidelines, and everybody gets a chance to network. Publishers Marketplace reported that eight literary agencies have signed on, and one has already signed a new client. If you're in the market, you might want to check out the site.
If you're interested in making a living at writing, make sure to read this great post on the realities of the writers life: http://www.genreality.net/more-on-the-reality-of-a-times-bestseller
The fact is, making a living at the arts has never been easy. My wife is a quilt artist, I have a daughter who is a dancer, a brother who is a trombone player, a brother and a sister who were both dancers, a mother-in-law who is a painter, and I used to make my living performing. None of us have found it an easy road. Making a living at the arts (ANY art) is a tough road to travel.
Last thing: On Friday and Saturday, I'm going to be in Dallas for the first Fiction Marketing Seminar. Jim Rubart (a longtime marketing consultant) and I are teaching a small group of novelists who want to know how they can take charge of marketing their own novels. We're going to do this again in Indianapolis December 4 and 5. There's still space, if you'd like to join us. This seminar is aimed at helping novelists create their own marketing plans -- something that's become essential in today's publishing economy. If you want to find out more, check it out at:
-Chip
You do realize this marks the end of the flattering blog comments for you, right? No one's going to risk looking like a Mindless Chip Fan.
p.s I can't believe you don't like fish tacos.
Posted by: Marla Taviano | November 16, 2009 at 05:43 PM
I enjoy a good tragedy, and darkness in a story doesn't bother me. I genuinely enjoyed Dekker's Kiss and Blink of an Eye. I even appreciated Thr3e, but this was also the point at which I realized the darkness overwhelmed the story. I no longer read Dekker, and was sorry to let go an author of whom I'd be a fan save for him going a bit too far.
I'm broadminded. Nonetheless, in CBA, I'd always expect Light to not simply contrast, but to cleanly overwhelm darkness.
Posted by: Anne Lang Bundy | November 16, 2009 at 05:51 PM
Brilliant! You de man, Chip! Uh, actually, don't get used to that. I disagreed with you. But then I also disagreed with Ted. And that was after I agreed with both of you. (http://timothyfish.blogspot.com/2009/11/thoughts-about-shouting-match.html) But as for fan comments, I tend to ignore them. I've seen posts where someone basically copied a definition out of a dictionary and the comments talked about how brilliantly it was written. I think I prefer Trolls to blind fans.
Posted by: Timothy Fish | November 16, 2009 at 06:14 PM
Chip you are so intelligent, hilarious, savvy, cool, chipper, smiley ... you're just the best.
Posted by: AW | November 16, 2009 at 06:21 PM
Chip, I'd like you to know that if you act like a complete twerp on your blog I'll be happy to tell you so.
I also promise never to call you 'da man'.
I'm that kind of fan.
Aimee
PS - Thanks for having the humility to admit you aren't ALWAYS right. Would you mind asterisking (that's a word, right?) any of those moments of stupidity ahead of time so we know to disregard? Thanks.
Posted by: AimeeLS | November 16, 2009 at 06:42 PM
It's true. I can be a twerp.
Posted by: chip responds | November 16, 2009 at 06:59 PM
There's some more of that humble truth we like so much :)
You da man! Oh...wait...
Posted by: AimeeLS | November 16, 2009 at 07:13 PM
Aw, man. I love celebrity death matches. Do you think Ted would at least write a scary chase scene in a future book where his fans are trying to get you?
Posted by: Matt Mikalatos | November 16, 2009 at 07:13 PM
You know, I've already had at least dozen emails from people, saying that after this post, nobody will be brave enough to ever comment again!
Posted by: chip responds | November 16, 2009 at 07:28 PM
*Pats Chip's head soothingly*
It's okay. You're Scottish. It was bound to happen.
Posted by: AimeeLS | November 16, 2009 at 07:50 PM
The only part of this post that genuinely astounded me was the part where you said you have a brother and a sister who were both dancers. If this is the case, what happened to you? Why are you not a dancer, too? Were they adopted? Or did you just get the funny gene, instead? Seriously, Chip. . .I'm your biggest fan, even if you don't dance.
Posted by: Janice Thompson | November 16, 2009 at 09:12 PM
(Not a "you da man" comment.)
Actually, for the record, I think the reason you see Mr Dekker's argument as a straw man is because you missed his argument.
Quote: "[T]hese kinds of guidelines publically characterize Christianity and so called ‘Christian Fiction’ as being out of touch with reality, narrow minded and judgmental, regardless of the publisher’s intention."
Frankly, there are many words and situations listed in those guidelines that I avoid, yet I managed to to write a rather dark novella ("A Place to Die, https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/5028), which, in spite of its darkness, does in fact show light clearly overwhelming dark, and does show the power of God and of prayer. It is certainly a project I could not have written under Harlequin's guidelines for the Love Inspired line, had I known they existed, but that's not the point.
Having grown up in an extremely strait-laced, legalistic church, I am well aware of the narrow view held by some as to what constitutes Christianity. Certainly, this list cannot be said to have broadened those views, but that's fine, because apparently it is not the intent of the guidelines or the books they are intended for to broaden anyone's view of Christianity, to speak to non-Christians in any significant way, or to show darkness losing out in a big showdown. And that's fine.
But I believe the central point of Mr Dekker's argument is simply that these guidelines risk being taken as a definition of Christian fiction (which they are not -- portions of the King James Bible would not clear these guidelines), and would, if applied to all of Christian publishing, severely hamper the ability to speak to certain people in certain situations.
Certainly, there is a need for such fiction. Believe me, if my mother read "A Place to Die," she'd be appalled. I believe there's also a need for Ted Dekker's fiction (disclaimer: I've never read any of his work), for Frank Peretti's, and (I hope) for mine, as well.
This why God made so many of us. We're all different.
Posted by: Levi Montgomery | November 17, 2009 at 03:05 AM
Thanks for this post. It reminds us that we are all human and while I love the blogs I follow, I also very much appreciate that the writers are human. Have always told those who follow me in my own profession to please not put me on a pedastal as I will fall off one day and don't want to break my neck. Thanks for expressing that so clearly.
Posted by: Kathy Nicholls | November 17, 2009 at 03:26 AM
Chip, loved this blog. You're a genius. ;-)
Seriously, the secret to growing your fan base is fish tacos. I have been hesitant to say this in public, because I know it's going to start a run on Mexican restaurants everywhere. But I have to be honest. There's something about fish tacos that create brand "stickiness" (or at least sticky fingers).
Posted by: Michael Hyatt | November 17, 2009 at 04:35 AM
You make a very good point here, Chip, about mindlessly following people and refusing to see their flaws. If you do that, you are sure to be disappointed or even devastated at some point because no one can live up to the image of a perfect human being for long.
At one time the United Methodist Church was known for moving its pastors frequently. Some church people would be crushed when their favorite pastor had to move on and some even followed him to his new church. My mother was surprised by the reaction she got when she told people that she didn't go to the church for the pastor anyway. She went there because of the church itself (meaning the flock.)
It's a good reminder to ask ourselves just who it is we are following.
Posted by: Cindy Thomson | November 17, 2009 at 04:37 AM
It is hard to take the emotion out of our responses.
I always appreciate your posts and the way you share with all of us, not just your clients.
Thank you.
Posted by: Sharon A Lavy | November 17, 2009 at 05:24 AM
The thought of fish tacos makes me gag. Ugh.
As for the great Chip MacGregor...well, you used to intimidate me. Seriously. But that was until last night in the My Book Therapy chat.
Wildly fun! Great information! Saw the goofy side of you. A couple of times, I wanted to duct tape your fingers. Challenged my job as moderator, but I don't regret it. Hope to have you back again sometime.
Hope the wild winds settled and didn't blow your house down!
Posted by: Lisa Jordan | November 17, 2009 at 05:32 AM
Your blog referencing Ted Dekker really threw me off. I thought I had you pegged and expected your reaction to be total agreement. My heart was softened by your defense of writers seen as lesser in the eyes of some and my own conscience a bit pricked by your shallow vs. deep point. It made you appear trustworthy and safe, so much so that I immediately tied on a blindfold and extended my arms to begin my mind-numbed following.
Posted by: Leah Morgan | November 17, 2009 at 06:05 AM
The old saw "there is none more judgmental than the one who is judgmental of the judgmental" is proven true in Dekker's post. So what if Love Inspired wants to establish standards for its books. No one has to read them if they don't want to (including Dekker). I don't read Christian romance and would probably gag if I did. But that isn't the point! Love Inspired produces books its loyal readers enjoy and are grateful for. Last time I checked I haven't seen any of those authors blogging against Dekker's books.
As to the fanatics - we will always have them. God bless them. God help them.
Posted by: Tim George | November 17, 2009 at 06:46 AM
Hey, Levi, you make a great point. And if that was Ted's main point, I'd be more apt to offer him another attaboy. But... well, frankly, I don't think that was his point. Still, I appreciate you coming on and making your very thoughtful and well-reasoned response.
Posted by: chip macgregor | November 17, 2009 at 07:34 AM
GREAT POST, CHIP! You da man.
Seriously, this is an Emperor Wore No Clothes Story. I see it a lot on agent blogs. Agents have followers and of those followers he or she will have a few regulars who comment on each and every post as if the agent said the most mind-blowing thing ever. It's definately drone-like and I wonder if their sucking up will help or hurt their chances with that agent.
Posted by: Tricia | November 17, 2009 at 07:39 AM
I think the debate, for lack of a better word, really made me think. I enjoyed reading both sides and all of the comments on the issue as a whole.
What it comes down to, folks, is that you should write what you want to write. Choose a publisher, agent, market, that best suits your style and your goals. If the guidelines of a particular publisher are too stringent for your writing, I guess that's not the one for you. Certainly each publisher has the right to set guidelines just a writer has the right not to write for them.
Simple.
Thanks for the great posts, Chip MacGregor, the Magnificent. ;)
Looking forward to Indy!
Posted by: Nicole O'Dell | November 17, 2009 at 07:41 AM
For some reason I find these kinds of debates interesting. I'm not a fan of romance. I like true to life stories that are edgy and thrilling, but I'm not gonna bash my romance writing friends.
To me it's about market. There is an audience for Ted Dekker, and an audience for Harlequin. I applaud writers who can find their market and be successful.
But what seems to be the root of this debate is the ancient question: what is Christian Fiction?
I think it was Dave Lambert who said it best at the ACFW conference in MN - "There are two kinds of fiction; good fiction and bad fiction." As writers we need to write the stories God called us to write. He will infuse himself in our stories as needed for our audience. Our job is to excel at the craft so our books revealing Him will be deemed "good fiction".
And I must admit I hate fish, so fish tacos are out for me, but no judgement on those who happen to like the smelly stuff :D
Posted by: Darcie | November 17, 2009 at 08:59 AM
No Celebrity Death Match between you and Ted? Crap. Now I'll have to cancel the deposit I put down on the Thunderdome.
Would have been sweet, too. You could have had the chainsaw, Chip, and Ted could have had the sledgehammer. I would have left it between the two of you to decide who got to carry the dwarf on his back.
Posted by: John Robinson | November 17, 2009 at 09:24 AM
Late-breaking news from the publishing front.
Dateline 11/17/09 - From Publisher’s Weakly:
"...it appears that best-selling Christian thriller writer, Ted Dekker, is prepared to take his apology to readers of Steeple Hill’s ‘Love Inspired’ novels to another level altogether. In a stunning development, Dekker has agreed to put his literary money where his mouth is, and actually WRITE his own series of Love Inspired titles.
To further complicate matters the recently beleaguered master of suspense has decided to ‘up the contrition ante’ (or perhaps the penance ante?) by creating a storyline that tests the publisher’s oft-mocked restrictions to their sanitized limit…
‘After a felonious attempt at involuntary nipple-piercing, recovering priest and retired gambling addict, Seymour Flesh has been sentenced to 3,000 hours of community service as a Shoe Shine Man in a men’s restroom…not just any restroom, but a lavatory haunted by the ghost of Victoria…not just any Victoria, but the one with all the lacy Secrets. Not only is Seymour smitten at first sight, but also afflicted with a case of late-onset Tourette’s. To win Victoria’s eerie little heart, Seymour must appease Victoria's imperious father--the mythic god of shoehorns--by cleaning up his mouth as well as the endless bank of smelly urinals…’
The release of Book I (as yet untitled) is slated for the second January of 2012.”
Just though you'd like to know.
Posted by: Michael Snyder | November 17, 2009 at 09:54 AM
Thanks for your words re. personalities and sycophants, Chip.
My dad was a Christian leader who had hard words for obsequious people who he felt forced him onto a pedestal. “They want someone to follow,” he’d say. “They don’t want to think for themselves.” And he could be frank in his disrespect for Christian-leader-power-monger types who cultivated such followers in order to build might for their conservative political agendas. For that he was viciously attacked.
Your description of the mega-church pastor is one reason I avoid mega churches. I just don’t trust them because they tend toward the “personality-sycophant” syndrome. Having said that, here’s my caveat: It is ABSOLUTELY true that the pastor of a mega-church can be a humble, realistic, sin-confessing, Christ-centered, Holy Spirt-indwelled shepherd of his flock.
And re. your post several days ago about assuming a less “edgy” blog personality . . . I liked the gentler, more sincere you. I hoped it was the other part of you--in other words, the whole you to round out your edgy side. It seemed the edgy you had become your blog personality. I noted that the back-patting comments you usually received were “replies in kind” from those who could assume similarly edgy, flip, or cool personas. But that made you unapproachable for those of us who don’t want to work so hard to be cool. (My husband, however, will tell you I can be plenty edgy . . . )
Posted by: Robin Archibald | November 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Putz is such a great word. Putz.
The link to the NYT author's diatribe about money was so depressing I don't think I want to write any more.
At least today. But I'm on deadline
Posted by: RH | November 17, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Mike Snyder ftw!
Posted by: Johne Cook | November 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Hate that I missed last night's My Book Therapy Chat. (I'll get the transcript from Lisa.)
But phrases like "In short, the guy was a putz." and "...I'll be the first to tell you that I do NOT know everything, do NOT always set a good example, and do NOT want the responsibility of being the last word on everything in publishing" will keep me reading forever. (Is that syncophant enough for you?)
All you have to do is continue to be honest. Most of us appreciate it.
Posted by: PatriciaW | November 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM
At the heart of the issue of fans that set the blog-writer (agent,writer,etc.) up as god-like is the very human urge to have an idol. They want something to worship and admire. Of course this type of admiration is only supposed to be given to God. (Glad you don't want it, Chip. As much as I appreciate the job you do, I wouldn't have given it to you anyway.) It's important to have compassion on such followers while still directing them away from ourselves as the object of their affection. We only are to fill the role we are assigned by God. Yours, Chip, is obviously to educate us about publishing for which I am grateful.
By the way, I like the edgy Chip. I like to know what you REALLY think. And I might disagree with you someday. I never did like the mindless drone gig.
Posted by: Joanne Mueller | November 17, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Michael is clearly off his meds again...
And I happen to LOVE fish tacos! (Salmon is best, but I had a spicy whitefish recently that was great.)
Posted by: chip | November 17, 2009 at 02:56 PM
As usual, Chip, you pull no punches, but with your customary humor tucked in.
I agree with you; some churches are personality-driven. That can get in the way of being Jesus-driven. If/when that person leaves--or makes the scandal headlines--disillusioned people leave the church and sometimes never come back.
As for the Dekker thing, if Michael Snyder's comment is for real, Dekker has gone over the edge.
Or are you putting us on, Michael?
Posted by: Lenore Buth | November 17, 2009 at 04:34 PM
Oh, Chip! You're flinging the big words: sycophants. Love it! I can't attest to your genius--or lack of genius, for that matter. But, I do like your honesty. It paws listening to sickening sweet diatribes. Yours is meat. Just the facts, ma'am. Thanks.
Posted by: Debbi | November 17, 2009 at 07:33 PM
For some reason, this has me thinking of the "Twilight" movies. If someone mentions not liking "Twilight," they're attacked by hordes of what we geeks call fanboys (sorry, we haven't come up with a unisex name). If someone mentions liking "Twilight," out comes the fundy chainsaw. Oh, the things we worship.
Ahem. Sorry.
I kind of agreed with Ted - the word list was ridiculous.
Although I have seen stricter on a pub guidelines list, along the lines of female characters can't wear skirts, etc. But it was for a very conservative market, so it was appropriate. Which leads to ....
The list seems appropriate to the Christian romance market. Ted's rant was a little on the ranty side, but he writes dark, so maybe he thinks dark, too?
(Count me in as another disappointed to find there was no death match scheduled. At the very least, we should be treated to a Twitter war.)
Posted by: Ange | November 17, 2009 at 09:57 PM
Sorry, need to clarify: the female characters couldn't wear skirts, they must wear dresses only.
Posted by: Ange | November 17, 2009 at 09:58 PM
I think we can all agree that Michael Snyder is now clearly de man...
Posted by: Sandra Bishop | November 17, 2009 at 11:02 PM
For the record, I love the word "twerp" and seeing it in print makes me happy on the inside.
Somewhere along the way I missed that you used to make a living performing? I want to hear more about that!
I'm a romance writer who is also a Ted Dekker fan. For that reason, if he did write a Love Inspired line, I'd pre-order it. Truly, I'd like to see a little more realism in romance novels myself... as long as there's still a happy ending...
Oh, and Chip, you're a genius. :)
Posted by: Courtney Walsh | November 18, 2009 at 07:00 AM
Hi Chip,
As always, interesting blogs the last 2 days.
I agree with a "to each his own" approach, and that what some people like to read would offend others. I also now realize that purely Christian fiction has some definite dos and dont's that surprised me a bit. One thing that was unfortunate is some people (thankfully a minority) seem take the rules to an extreme, almost like the Christian version of the Taliban, and if you don't meet their specific standards, heaven help you. Otherwise, most people actually act like Christians and are open-minded.
For what it's worth.
Posted by: Mike Sheehan | November 18, 2009 at 08:12 AM
What is the "My Book Therapy Chat" and how do I get in on it???
Posted by: AimeeLS | November 18, 2009 at 09:40 AM
I've notice that us christians can get focused on one's gifts rather than one's character which can be a dangerous thing.
Posted by: James | November 18, 2009 at 01:39 PM
Good grief, Mike. You just described the idea I submitted to Chip two days ago. Huh. I guess there really is nothing new under the sun. . .
Posted by: Gina Holmes | November 18, 2009 at 02:28 PM
I'm really glad I read this and your previous blog. I do consider myself a die-hard Dekkie, but even though I could probably survive a week on nothing but his Books of History Chronicles and unlimited Rockstars, I still try to remember that Ted is not God and his books are not new additions to the Bible. There are things he says that I disagree with, some personal and some of greater doctrinal value. But this blog in particular reminds me of how fired up everyone (myself included) was over the break from good doctrine he had with Green when he left the side-by-side analogy of the Circle trilogy (which did "bring me closer to God," long before I started college) and entered the purely fictional realm that he needed to complete the story. It took a few weeks of debating and deep thinking before we cooled off enough to accept that Green doesn't actually happen just like Revelation.
I realize this is long and you probably won't read it, but thanks for this. It helped me understand what all was going on here, at least.
Posted by: Smoore (Seth Moore) | November 18, 2009 at 02:45 PM
Wow! Ted Dekker here. First of all let me express my deepest apology to any writer of any genre who felt like my criticism of Steeple Hill included Romance novels in general or of any writers. (I just finished my first romance entitled Immanuel's Veins, set in 1772. I'm a romantic fool! It was such a thrill to write.) God knows how much I adore writers of any ilk... it is such hard work, this writing we do and to think I've discouraged some writer... I am so sorry! I was only trying to make a point about very narrow guidelines that prohibited words like 'Priest' and 'Miracle' and 'Father' in a novel.
Let me also say that my whole purpose in writing is laden with spiritual intent. If my novels do not move many readers deeply to this end, they are so much pulp and I might consider quiting tomorrow.
Eitherway, I sincerely regret any offense I have caused any reader or writer. I spoke with Joan Golan at Steeple Hill today and found her to be very kind. The page in question (which prohibited words like Priest and Father etc) was very old and will hopefully come down. It certainly was no reflection of Joan.
Sorry, my friends, I did not expect to cause such a stir.
Posted by: Ted Dekker | November 18, 2009 at 04:04 PM
FYI: Ted just posted this on his Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/teddekker
on 11/18 at about 6:30pm EST
Posted by: Daniel Smith | November 18, 2009 at 04:08 PM
Thanks for coming to our chat Ted!
I personally appreciate your willingness to admit things may have gone too far.
I know you're receiving a lot of advice to keep the post up after your query on Facebook. If it's worth anything, I agree with the few who've suggested taking it off is both humble and wise (in terms of letting things pass by).
In my experience, the things that are often the hardest to do are usually right.
Either way, thanks for putting yourself out there when the going got hot - I really think that shows a desire to honor God rather than yourself.
God bless,
Aimee
John 7:18 "He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him."
Posted by: AimeeLS | November 18, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Wait. Who, exactly, is Ted Dekker?
JK.
Posted by: Randy Mortenson | November 19, 2009 at 07:56 AM