The Good, the Bad, and the Faux Deep

The Big News in publishing today is that they've refined the Google Book Settlement. (If you're unaware, Google is going to digitize nearly every out-of-print book and make it available for sale -- that's huge news to anyone involved in the publishing industry.) They still plan on setting up a Book Rights Registry to make sure some of the money goes to the rights holder of those oop books, but they couldn't get all those pesky foreign governments to work with them (the nerve!). So now the settlement will basically be limited to books published in English -- that is, books from the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. So the pool of books, while still huge, has been limited considerably. The other big changes include: an oversight board to look out for orphaned books (where it's not clear who the owner is), a reworking of the financials, and a clause that allows someone other than Google to control the whole mess. Is this done yet? Not sure... but it certainly looks like we're moving toward some sort of digital book registry, so that every book ever published in the English language will be available to you in a digital format. And yes, I still think this is a good thing, if you consider the big picture.

Over in the world of Christian publishing, novelist Ted Dekker made a big splash, showing incredibly poor judgment in deciding to slam the biggest segment of publishing, apparently because it doesn't make him happy. He took aim at Christian romance publishers in general, and Harlequin's Love Inspired in particular, poking fun at their rules and offering a big list of words they can't use. (You can read the whole diatribe at http://www.teddekker.com/2009/11/07/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/ ). He then turned it into a crusade, suggesting all right-thinking religious writers "call out" the terrible issue of...um, not being able to use the word "hooters" in fiction, I guess. 

Um... Ted. These are novels. The readers buying these books want clean, safe, romantic titles. They won't be buying YOUR books, which are none of the above. Instead, they'll look for a good story, with no bad words or obvious sexual sidelines. What's wrong with that? When did we decide banning certain books was a good idea? And there are a LOT of these readers -- something we can safely state, since in a terrible publishing year, Harlequin actually GREW. In fact, they posted the biggest gains of any publisher over the past twelve months. So maybe they're on to something. If that list of words they don't want you to use (which, taken out of context, is admittedly pretty funny) gets you all hot and bothered, don't buy them. Buy something else -- a Stephen King novel, maybe. Or something racier, if that's what gets your motor running. But your argument suggests that there are good Christian novels (the ones you like) and bad Christian novels (the ones romance readers like), and that we apparently need to stand up and demand... what? That they stop doing the books you don't like?

This is a straw man argument. It's easy for speculative readers to attack romance novels, just as it's easy for academic writers to attack the writers of popular reference. You start shouting, claim the other side is stupid, and give evidence of a couple dopey things they've done. In Ted's case, he wrapped it all up in a veneer of spirituality, asking the "What Would Jesus Do" question. It's what is called a "deep vs shallow" argument, and it goes like this: "What I write is deep... what you write is shallow."

My response: Bull. (And yes, I'd have used a stronger word, but I don't want to lose all those romance readers.) Ted's novels aren't deep -- they're chases and thrillers that tell a good story and, occasionally, offer a spiritual thread. But they're very dark (and, frankly, getting darker all the time). None of them cause you to think deeply about your faith, nor do I know anyone who has come to a deeper walk with God because of reading them. (I suppose it could have happened, but I don't know of anyone who would make that claim.) Different readers want different types of stories. If some people are offended by certain words or situations, isn't it legitimate to write a book for them? In my view, a writer can create a "real" book without using words that might offend a select audience. In fact, we do it ALL THE TIME. Ted's books don't have the F word -- why? Because it would turn off his readership, to say nothing of the retailers. So this is just an argument of degree. I guess, if you read Ted's post, this means I'm voting "A" -- that I call him out for a biased, shallow argument, and tell him the only thing I'm appalled at is his arrogance. 

On a happier note, check out  http://www.ajc.com/news/blogger-raises-30k-in-193483.html . 

Jon Acuff, the genius behind the popular Stuff Christians Like website, told his readers he'd like to help the Samaritan's Purse organization raise $30,000 to build an orphanage in Vietnam. (This came about because Jon's six-year-old daughter read a story about starving children in that country and she wanted to help.) So Jon challenged his readers to make a donation -- and something that would have taken the organization months to accomplish was done in 18 hours. That's right -- he raised $30,000 in 18 hours, just by asking his friends on his website. In fact, the money came in so fast that Jon decided to try and double it -- and raised $60,000 so Samaritan's Purse could build TWO orphanages. Shows you something about the power of the internet to build a community of like-minded people, doesn't it? Amazing stuff. Check out Jon's website at www.stuffchristianslike.net .

 And, by the way, Jon's book, Stuff Christians Like, comes out with Zondervan next March. 

Comments

[Betsy St. Amant]

Thank you, Chip. As a Love Inspired author, I appreciate your defense.

[Mae Nunn]

Thank you so much, Chip! You've eloquently and professionally expressed the feelings of the Love Inspired authors and readers who found Ted's hissy fit offensive.

[Hillary Lodge]

Incredible arrogance. But he also has a wife and two young daughters. In all likelihood, his home will become increasingly full of romance novels in the years to come...

[AimeeLS]

I read Dekker's rant. I wonder exactly what kind of 'truth' he is pitching for - and what kind of truth he believes Christ offered.

There's a huge difference between loving the 'unclean' people and loving their activities.

That said, I write (and read) material that doesn't fit those guidelines.

I was challenged about this very issue by my aunt. She read an early pass at my ms which included a couple of words on that list. Her comments were disappointed and the question she posed was "Is it necessary?".

When I read the stuff, the answer was no. It added impact. But in TRUTH that impact could be gained in other ways by more effective writing.

I agree with Dekker that there is room in Christ's freedom for writing that is less conservative than this. I don't believe those works are (necessarily) sinful - though perhaps the line is thinner than we'd like to think.

But there's a risk in comparing Jesus' reactions and words to our own. He had insight we didn't. He understood the 'vipers' around Him in ways we can't. He also wasn't given to the sinful flaws and desires we are.

And I suspect he never used the word "Hooters" either...

[Cecelia Dowdy]

Thanks so much for "putting Ted in his place, Chip." Although I do respect Ted as an author, and have enjoyed a few of his novels, he did annoy me with his post, although he did attempt to explain himself when he saw the uproar he'd caused!

[Ellen Gee]

Um let me see, how many classic novels adhere to many of those guidelines?

My problem with the Ted Dekker theory is authors, film makers, and musicians who feel the need to put 'realism' in everything they produce. Just because I use the toilet every day doesn't mean I want to see it in a film or read about it in a book. Too often 'realism' is introduced, not to enhance content, but to make the author appear edgy. If an author can write a great story inside those guidelines, then they truly are a gifted writer.

[Barbara Phinney]

Thank you, Chip. I appreciate you speaking out to Ted on this matter. You make far more sense than he did.
Barbara Phinney
Love Inspired Author

[Shirlee]

I've been on the wrong side of the shallow vs. deep argument one too many times to be bothered by Ted Dekker's rant. I enjoy writing what I write. Plenty of people enjoy reading what I write. What's the sense in getting defensive about it?

It is, however, very nice to read a blog that doesn't take a condescending tone toward romance writers.

Thanks, Chip.

[Hillary Lodge]

I had another thought on the subject. The guidelines are for Steeple Hill, which is an imprint of Harlequin.

So, Harlequin in an of itself has a reputation for being (not undeservedly so, see http://tiny.cc/megc) smutty romance fiction.

I remember when they first released the imprint that they were having a hard time finding a footing because of the Harlequin link - hence courting popular CBA writers.

My thought is that BECAUSE of the Harlequin link, the Steeple Hill books are that much more conservative, so no one has the opportunity to say, "That's wrong, that's inappropriate, that's offensive, and it's because they're put out by Harlequin."

Mainstream CBA houses, though, are not as conservative in their fiction lines, and don't need to be because they've got a proven track record with conservative readers.

So Steeple Hill avoiding mentions of unmentionables is not unlike an alcoholic avoiding a wine tasting. They have their own reasons, and that's okay.

[Ruth Logan Herne]

Chip, thanks for the post. Nice spin.

And because years back I was guilty of talking out of my hat like a certain full-of-himself young author, I can see both sides.

I was wrong then.

He's wrong now.

And now... With no irony and just a wonderful twist of perfect timing...

I'm a thrice-contracted Steeple Hill/Love Inspired author and can't wait to release my debut novel with them.

We're never too old to learn to think first, talk later.

Ruthy

[Laura Droege]

Interesting post, interesting comments. I have to admit that I giggled when I read the list of "forbidden" words, but I can see why some readers would object to them. If particular content/words bother certain readers, then there ought to be publishers who publish books aimed for those people. If it goes against someone's conscience to read certain words or novels with objectionable content, then I think we need to respect that; I would not want to be held responsible by God for unnecessarily causing my brother or sister in Christ to go against their personal convictions (even if I don't hold to those same convictions).

My writing isn't "clean", and I'm realistic enough to know that a Christian publisher won't touch my novel in spite of the explicitly Christian themes and worldview. But honestly, I cannot adhere to most CBA guidelines regarding sexual content (at least as I understand the guidelines and parameters). Some of the content is explicit--a rape scene (graphic but not gratuitous), and some frank discussion about sexual disfunction between a husband and wife--and it is a vital part of the work. (The novel involves a young bipolar woman who engages in risky sexual behavior during manic episodes.)

I have to be realistic, not to be edgy or provocative, but because removing the more graphic material simply wouldn't work in this particular situation. It would be very strange to be in this character's head (while she's psychotic) and then, suddenly, remove the reader from the scene during the rape, then drop the reader back into story during the immediate aftermath of the rape. I really don't think that would be good storytelling.

I've tried to be responsible in how explicit I am in these situations. Readers in my online critique group think I've managed this; no one has walked away thinking I'm condoning sex outside of marriage. Readers have also commented on the strong Christian message and the element of hope even in the midst of tragedy.

My writing isn't for everyone, obviously. Some people should actively avoid it. (Hillary's comment regarding the alcoholic avoiding a wine tasting is excellent.) I'm not offended. In fact, I'm thankful that there are writers and publishers who aim for people who need ultra-clean work. I can't fault them for that.

I'm also thankful for the people who jumped in to give money to Samaritan's Purse, and for Jon for using his platform/blog to raise the money. That is awesome.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599142333]

Thanks, Chip, for your intelligent response to an arrogant diatribe posted elsewhere on the Internet about the Christian fiction published by Steeple Hill. Bless you!

I'm no expert on the matter, but I'd guess SH is doing so well because they've tried hard to reach readers who love suspense, adventure, romance, while trying to avoid offending the sensibilities of those from a wide variety of faith backgrounds. And what is wrong with reaching the widest possible audience with a clean read and an uplifting message? If working to find a different word means that readers will read my books and come back for more, it's sure worth it to me! Though frankly, I've never seen a list of forbidden words and I'm now working on my eighth SH novel.

Just my two cents!

[Linda Hall]

Thank you so much, Chip, for writing this! I really appreciate your words. I am a Love Inspired author and was really hurt by his words of ridicule.

[Mary Connealy]

I find more freedom in the rules and regs of Christian Publishing than I do in secular publishing because in secular publishing they come very close to REQUIRING a certain amount of graphic sex and profane language.

Yes, if you're a big shot you can skip that. Debbie Macomber comes to mind. She writes terrific books that would offend no one for a secular publisher. But try breaking IN at an ABA publisher, especially in romance, without sexual content. Forget it.

So to find CBA was the answer to my prayers. And finally I was given the freedom to get a book published without the profanity and sleaze that I refused to write.

ABA is the one with foolish restrictions.

Bottom line, Ted's got a book coming out and he's trying to crank up the PR machine.

[Thom]

I'm no Ted Dekker fan but I'm shocked to find you defending the indefensible. As a Christian author I expect more from an agent. I've been reading your blog a long time but this post is such a compromise of your integrity that it calls everything you say and do professionally into question. I'm actually removing your site from my bookmarks. I'm deeply disappointed.

[LNwrite2@aol.com]

Thank you, Chip!

Lenora Worth :)

[Brian T. Carroll]

I don't mind realism, but I just finished an MFA at a secular university and there were required books I had to fling across the room because individual sentences with six or eight instances of vocabulary SH couldn't even soil their list with. Some of this vocabulary may have impact when it is appropriately used, but the race to be edgier forces such over-use that it looses all impact (see the current lineup of TV programs). I've decided my very Christian WIP isn't likely to land in CBA, partly for some occasional vocabulary, but if Ted has identified a problem in today's Christianity, it probably ranks 10,001th in the top 10,000.

[Carol L Daubenmire]

Thom, please define " the indefensible." Also, could you explain what Chip said specifically to "compromise" his integrity? I am confused.

[Mike Dellosso]

Chip, I'm not a Love Inspired reader or writer but I thank you for your post. I read Ted's post a few days ago and was very bothered by it. But . . . I fear all this attention it's gotten is exactly what Ted wants and doesn't need--more publicity.

Thanks anyway for your defense of Love Inspired!

[Gina Holmes]

I think Ted's heart is in the right place though his reaction perhaps a little knee-jerkish and judgmental.

I Corinthians 8 comes to mind.

Within the CBA, there seems to be two very different groups. The edgy folks, and the ultra-conservative folks and both are needed I think, iron sharpening iron, to keep a healthy balance, and to write to the audience whose language only they speak.

It would have been different if Love Inspired or their authors were calling out Thomas Nelson and other publishers for NOT adhering to their list.

[Tamara]

Obviously, Ted Dekker has never read a Christian romance. It takes far greater skill to write by guidelines. And "real" issues? You'll find them in Christian romance. It's not so much about "ugliness" if that is how he defines "real". It's about what we want infiltrating our little brains.

[Bonnie Grove]

This is on Ted's Facebook page this morning:

"My heart is broken for all the Steeple Hill writers I saddened--my words may have undermined them along with the guidelines I was writing about. Yikes! No! Their stories have touched millions and those puritanical guidelines are not their doing. Now I want to give them all a hug and beg their forgiveness! It takes a lot of courage to write a novel. The guidelines we can question; the writers we will all love, yes?"

He also Twittered it.

Sharing thoughts online is always difficult - and even in blog posts no one can express the fullness of their thoughts, intentions, and meaning.

I sometimes wish we could all have coffee together and chat about stuff like this. I bet we'd all have a great time and would end up appreciating each other in a deeper way. And we'd have fun!

[Chip responds]

Thanks for that update, Bonnie. Patti and I were taking a day off (to go watch my Ducks beat Arizona State!), and I didn't see Ted's update. That's a very nice gesture on his part.

As for Thom, I have no idea what you're talking about. What "indefensible" thing am I defending -- freedom of speech?

[PatriciaW]

The truth is all of the Christian publishers have some sort of similar guidelines, more or less. SH is just more specific--and public--about theirs.

I'm so tired of Christian fiction authors judging other Christian fiction authors. Whatever happened to the body having many members, and needing all of them to function to the glory of God?

[AimeeLS]

Amen to that! (Patricia)

[Jodie]

Thank you, Chip, for typing every word of that post.

[Kay Dew Shostak]

It's like a Christian working at the food bank looking down on those working at the clothes' closet. After all, food is OBVIOUSLY more vital. If we all had the same message and the same audience it sure would be boring. And a lot less writers and agents would be needed - Yikes!

[brandt Dodson]

On a whole other topic ...

I've been reading "How To Write Poetry" by Diane Mehta. I plan on entering the "bad poetry" competition next spring. I figure if I'm going to learn to write bad poetry, I might as well learn it good. (uh ... well).

[Brenda Coulter]

I found Mr. Dekker's apology less than endearing. He still thinks Steeple Hill Books promotes a narrow-minded Christianity, right? He still thinks Jesus would object to its writers' guidelines, right? Then somebody explain to me how he can admire Steeple Hill's Love Inspired authors, WHO VERY HAPPILY WRITE WITHIN THOSE "SHOCKING" GUIDELINES.

It seems to me that given Mr. Dekker's continued bias against the publisher, he can't possibly view its authors as anything but weak-minded individuals who have compromised their integrity in order to be published by Love Inspired. Yet he insists he has nothing but respect for the authors--because after all, THEY didn't write those awful guidelines, did they?

Sheesh. His apology is even more nonsensical than his original post. Surely a NYT-bestselling novelist ought to know that putting a book on store shelves requires a solid partnership between publisher and author. If Steeple Hill Books were giving Christianity a bad name (and of course they are not), the authors would be equally culpable.

Mr. Dekker appears to remain willfully ignorant of the purpose of the Love Inspired guidelines, which do NOT exist to promote or suppress any particular brand of Christianity, as he seems to believe, but rather to provide writers with a simple list of words that SOME readers might object to. By disallowing those words in Love Inspired novels, the publisher ensures that the books will continue to appeal to the broadest possible base of readers.

[Jenny B. Jones]

I am really proud of Jon Acuff, his daughter, and the Stuff Christians Like blog readers. How cool is that? What a great testimony of God's people (and probably some who aren't card carrying members) reaching out and making a difference. Great use of a platform.

[Crystal Laine Miller]

Right on, Chip!

I respect Ted Dekker in that he knows his audience and that he actually gets to write what he wants to write. He found a publisher and readers.

With that said, Harlequin is a great publishing company for which to work.(I have.) They know their audiences, do a great job of delivering books for those audiences (their profits show this.) They are constantly polling those same audiences. Their editors (and their readers) are Harvard, Princeton, etc. grads, some with doctorates. I can't think of anyone in that company (not just the Christian line) that I've run across for whom I didn't have respect. Those guidelines show that they listen to their readers. Steeple Hill is growing.

They aren't being restrictive; they are delivering what a large group of Christian readers want. Don't like it? Don't read it or write it. While he apologized to the authors, he didn't withdraw his criticism about the guidelines--guidelines set into place by a company who listens to their readers.

And yeah, I read Ted Dekker-type books, Love Inspireds,Heartsongs,the Robert Liparulos and those in-between, as well as general (nonChristian) fiction. I read, and buy a lot. I believe in freedom to read what I want. Long live the Christian publishers and may we have variety.

[N. J. Lindquist]

My only comment is what world has Ted been living in? Every Christian publisher I've ever talked to has had a list of things they either wanted in a novel or didn't want in a novel. So Harlequin posted a list of words in order to assist writers trying to match their target audience. So what?

The truth is there is a very fine line between publishing books that fit the needs of your target audience and publishing books that are phony. Sure, sometimes boundaries need to be stretched. I've been frustrated with lack of vision in some areas of Christian publishing for many years. But writing isn't as much about the particular words you can or can't use as it is about knowing your audience and writing what is appropriate for that audience.

I'll be the first to admit this is tricky. And that most of my reading is in the mainstream mystery or fantasy genres because those are the books I most enjoy when I have a few minutes to read for pleasure. And no, most of them aren't filled with swearing or sex or violence.

It's very tricky. Some years ago, I wrote a piece for Exchange about one of my issues: I wanted my detective - who was not a Christian - to say one small swear word because frankly given his character and the circumstances, I couldn't envision him saying anything else. I didn't - ended up rewriting the scene. But it really irked me - not because I wanted to use the word - I really didn't - but because it seemed I was taking something from my character.

I felt I lost a little of my integrity by giving in. And to me that's ultimately what it's about - being true to the story you're writing and to your characters.

If you've faced this and want to read my short article, it's posted here: http://www.writewithexcellence.com/2007/01/walking-the-fiction-tightrope-writing-with-faith-and-honesty/

[Mark]

Great article. I read Dekker's "rant" and didn't agree either

[Hillary Lodge]

Patricia - That's a lovely way of thinking about it.

Didn't find Ted's apology particularly moving. I think it would have been a nicer touch if he could have gotten through it without throwing "Puritanical" in there.

Enough with the name calling, Ted! Accept you were wrong and MOVE ON.

[Sharon A Lavy]

Good post, Chip. Thanks.

[Rosslyn]

I think there is a much deeper conversation to be held here about what it means to read escapist fiction, and whether escapist fiction fills a healthy role in our spiritual lives. But I'm not going to start that conversation if I don't think people are willing to have a calm, open discussion without defensiveness. What I would really like is for people to have more intelligent conversations that get to the heart of what bothers them, instead of internet yelling, internet shrieking, and internet dogpiling on people who displease them. And that goes for everyone involved. I think we have to watch our tendency to behave like a schoolyard clique when it comes to controversy. Instead of going wild, maybe we need to ask more questions when we hear criticism. THAT'S what I think Jesus would have done. He was a good asker of questions, and he didn't freak out when people challenged him.

[chip responds]

This was sent to me from someone who wasn't able to post on this blog:

I came across your blog today, and I felt compelled to respond. I will admit right off that I am a Dekker fan, having read all of his 30 or so books at least once. However, I am not ignorant in terms of other styles of writing-Christian or otherwise. One of my undergrad degrees is in Literature, and I'm constantly reading something.
I will readily admit I have not read anything from the publisher in question. Therefore I will not speculate on them; it would be unkind, and I'm sure something Ted wouldn't want me to do in speaking about this.
Ted didn't suggest banning books or authors-nor was he suggesting that he was superior in the eyes of Jesus. He, I believe, was just advocating societal accuracy in Christian publisher's rules, thus making us more authentic to the world. He didn't intend to attack the writers or the readers. He has always been the first to admit that his books aren't for everyone. Ted's actually a very gentle, humble, kind man-many will tell you this. I have never before this heard "arrogant" and "Ted Dekker" used in the same sentence. Honestly, it's hurtful, inaccurate, and not nice.
Ted's books most certainly speak to his faith in the Lord. Anyone who knows of Ted knows how much he loves Jesus. His books reflect this. If you read his Circle series in particular, you will see this. No one without strong faith could write like he does. Even his more secular works contain clashes between good and evil, clearly illustrating God's ability to conquer even the most deplorable. I personally know people who have given their life to Christ as a direct result of the understanding of Christ they developed through reading Ted's Circle series-I am one of them.
Thanks for hearing me out. I realize that I'm from "the other side" here. But I am a believer, too. I just wanted to give you a different perspective.

[Jill Kemerer]

Thank you for defending Steeple Hill. I love their books and am trying to get published through them. I think one of the reasons SH is so popular is, like you said, because readers know what to expect. Racy words and situations have become the norm in the romance industry, but not every reader wants that. I'm thankful to have Love Inspired books to read!

[Burton]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your comment: "None of them cause you to think deeply about your faith..."

I, and many others I know - have been deeply impacted by Ted's works.

Also, your comment: "nor do I know anyone who has come to a deeper walk with God because of reading them..." makes me think you must not know many people personally.

Let's agree to disagree - but keep it balanced please.

[Sherrie Lord]

I think the list is ridiculous and archaic — for my taste.

HOWEVER, Love Inspired has an audience just as Disney movies do. Rated G. Some would say simplistic, perhaps even juvenile.

Myself, I prefer more realism. But customers have the right to read whatever level of "realism" they desire.

Above all, let's remember that Chip and Ted and the editors and writers at Love Inspired all have the same Holy Spirit as the rest of us. How they act on that is between them and the Lord. God doesn't need me to do His job for him. I repent of any ridicule I've voiced.

[Jon]

I also felt compelled to respond to this post and stick up for Ted as some of the remarks in here are completely unfair to say the least, especially when you consider the very things he is being accused of are happening right here in this thread.

For example, regarding arrogance:

I couldn't agree more with Burton and the comment two above his. The statement made in the original text: "None of them cause you to think deeply about your faith . . ." is completely preposterous and unfounded. Every single one of his books have extended not only my own faith and world-view in some way, but many others I know as well. I would even go as far as to say that no other works of fiction have challenged me as profoundly as his have (and I read a lot of books). This alone puts into question everything else written in the original post, which appears to me to have this same baseless self-defense weaved throughout it.

As Sherrie Lord said, everything has an audience; but, we also must remember, as Dekker rightly puts it, ". . . to avoid offense at the expense of the truth is in itself offensive."

I know for a fact that Dekker (much like Rob Bell, who incidentally gets a similar amount of flack as Dekker does for the same reasons) likes to get people to think, not to portray himself as someone who has it all worked out or as someone who is likewise condescending of anyone who does not think like he does.

There can still be unity in disagreement, and all of Christianity is about balance. But, that said, just remember that Jesus never went to lengths as great as these to not offend people or to make the truth more user-friendly.

Just putting that out there.

[Dana Mentink]

Sheesh! I had no idea my writing for LIS was so inoffensively offensive! Thanks for standing up for this wee little writer!

[Burton]

Interesting when the poster deletes the comments that disagree with his point of view...

I wonder how long this will take to be deleted?

Once again, Ted's books have impacted my life hugely!

[Burton]

I must apologise! - Chip didn't delete my comment - My bad. Sorry mate! (just a bit fired up about this ;-)

[Anne Lang Bundy]

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 it 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 overwhelm darkness.

[chip responds]

For the record, I don't delete anyone's comments unless they say something racist or offer a patently offensive putdown. But sometimes it's hard to see the next row of comments on Typepad because the arrow > is so small.

[Adam Blumer]

Sorry, I'm a little late responding here. I agree with you, Chip, and thank you for speaking up. The Bible gives us strong exhortations about maintaining wholesome speech, and we're not to dismiss those just because we want our fiction to be truthful. In fact, the words we use are serious business because God will hold us accountable for all of them. So dismissing a strict standard as "puritanical" just because it isn't OUR personal standard shows a misunderstanding of another brother's biblical right to set his own boundaries. Notice that Steeple Hill isn't judging the spirituality of authors or publishers who do not follow their list, so there's nothing legalistic about it. They're just saying, "This is where WE stand. If you want to write for us, this is what we want you to do." It's like TV viewing. One believer may choose to watch certain programs another believer may not feel comfortable viewing due to questionable content. That doesn't make the stricter believer a Pharisee; it just means he's following his own conscience based on his understanding of Scripture and saying, "This is where I stand." Nobody should criticize him for that. (Keep in mind that I don't know Steeple Hill's motives, but I see obvious implications here that are consistent with scriptural principles.)

We're also supposed to be careful not to offend a brother or sister in Christ. Fiction can show the reader a mud puddle without dragging him or her through it. If there's the possibility of offending or turning off some segment of the CBA readership, why not strive for a "higher road" in word choice and just steer clear of objectionable elements? That choice makes sense to me, and there's even Scripture to support it. Where's the biblical mandate to flirt with objectionable content in the pursuit of realism?

While some items on the list may seem a tad extreme to some, I respect Steeple Hill for seeking to raise the bar of wholesome speech in Christian fiction. If any literature in the marketplace is wholesome and above reproach, it ought to come from authors who profess to reflect the mind of Christ.

How would Jesus respond? Frankly, I think He'd appreciate Steeple Hill's desire to produce Christian novels that are wholesome and inoffensive. They don't need to apologize for that.

[Tina Dee]

Thank you, Chip!

Obviously the readers don't find the list ridiculous. And in this economy, for LI/SH to sell so well... come on, Ted.

They're selling very well, so that must be telling us something about that list.

[Ada Nicholson Brownell]

I will not buy or read a Ted Dekker book, and I wonder why Thomas Nelson labeled his book, "Blink of an Eye" as Christian. The speculative suspense romance's main character has "precognition" and clairvoyance".

In the book, "God" (not Allah)is used for the Muslim god of the Saudi princess, as well as the Heavenly Father of the Old and New Testaments.

Dekker adds a comment at the book's end, in which he identies Jesus as the "Prophet of Love." He says nothing about the loving Redeemer of the world who suffered for our sins, died and rose from the grave. He doesn't mention He's the Son of God, there at creation, equal to God the Father, AND the only way to Heaven.

Dekker talks about Jesus' second commandment to love your neighbor and points out this extends to Muslims. He said, "nearly everything we believe is tied to the words, 'For God so loved the world...'"

Dekker does not complete the verse==leaving readers to agree with Muslims, Hindus, Moonies and others who believe Jesus was a great prophet, but not the only name by which we can have eternal life.

Thanks, Chip, for bringing to light the latest problem with his writing.

[Mike]

Chip:

Your website is not nearly as cool as Ted's. Get with it.

[Ted Dekker]

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.

[Margo Carmichael]

As Christians and writers, we need to decide for ourselves how to apply these guidelines from our Ultimate Editor:

James 3:1—how we are judged as influencers,

Philippians 4:8—what we should dwell on,

Matthew 18:6,7—result of causing spiritual problems for another.

Let every author be convinced in their own mind and write as they are led. : )

[Margo Carmichael]

As Christians and writers, we need to decide for ourselves how to apply these guidelines from our Ultimate Editor:

James 3:1—how we are judged as influencers,

Philippians 4:8—what we should dwell on,

Matthew 18:6,7—result of causing problems for another.

Let every author be convinced in their own mind and write as they are led. : )

(If this shows up 3x, it wasn't intentional. LOL)

[_*rachel*_]

I guess a Christian SFF author can't slam Christian Romance authors too much....

That's great about Samaritan's Purse!