A Spark Fires in the Void

I make my morning cup of tea, sit down at the table, and open my laptop—completely mundane acts on an entirely ordinary day.

A document file opened…a blinking cursor waiting for me to push it forward across the page…a keyboard waiting for my fingers to move.

And as they move, a spark fires in the void. A light appears in the distance—faintly, only barely visible at first, but glowing brighter, stronger. Following its rise from the darkness comes a world, solid and strong, with shape and texture and jagged edges. The building light solidifies into a blazing sun that breathes down onto the raw earth and fills it with color, life, growing things.

A fire burns in my chest and spreads, first to my shoulders, then down my arms, into my hands and fingers as they move faster and faster across the keyboard. I close my eyes, and I am there, standing in the midst of my created world, creating by the power of my will and imagination. In this world I am transcendent, unbound by finite size or capabilities. One moment I trace my finger in the sand of the beach and sketch a line across the miles, over mountain ranges and plains, outlining the borders of kingdoms and countries. The next moment I stand, tiny and insignificant, dwarfed by the towering columns, vaulted ceilings, arches, and domes of the palace that rises from the ground around me in response to my slowly lifting hands. At a wave of my arm, frescoes blossom to life across the ceiling and walls and stained glass materializes to glow in window settings. As I step forward, the bare earth beneath my feet turns to a marble floor, spreading outward like ripples in the water to merge with the walls.

Music pounds from all around me, from within me, from the very fibers of the world. I turn, and find that I am not alone. A crowd of people stands staring at me, waiting for me. Although they stand at many different distances from me, one man stands prominently in the foreground, watching me with a listless but expectant stare.

I place one hand lightly against his chest and exhale. His chest expands as he breathes in my breath, and the listlessness vanishes from his eyes, replaced by burning energy as we move in unison to take each other’s hands. We begin to move in time to the music, but tentatively at first, shy and uncertain. Then the music grown deeper, louder, more powerful, and we draw each other closer, moving now with confidence and nearly telepathic synchrony. Though no words are exchanged, I know his thoughts, his heart, his feelings. His desires resonate with me as clearly as my own. I feel his pain in my own being and look up at his face to see the tears that I feel falling from my own eyes.

I reach up to wipe them away, but before my fingers reach his face he takes me by surprise by spinning me away from him, twirling me under his arm and back to face him again, this time to see the tears gone and his eyes blazing with triumph and all-consuming joy. I try to move into a different set of steps, struggling to understand, but he tightens his arm around me and his grasp on my hand, and pulls me in a different direction, into a pattern I wasn’t expecting, and there is nothing I can do to get away.

The dance intensifies, growing faster and faster, and I am left with no choice but to stop fighting and surrender to the movement, and as I do I find myself lost in a pattern more complex than any I imagined before. A mosaic takes shape on the floor beneath me, and with every step of the dance, every twirl and spin, every moment of eye contact, more pieces materialize in the air and fall into place. I stare wide-eyed, struggling to miss nothing as thoughts, memories, emotions, loves, and fears, none of them my own, flicker to life in the air around me and become part of me. I care about them as much as I care about my own, about this man as much as I care about myself.

And then the music fades to a close and he stops in front of me, still holding my hands and looking into my eyes, this time with a wordless request. With my returned gaze I give my promise to grant his plea, and now it is my mission: to tell his story, to show the world the losses he has suffered, the destiny that has called him, the pain and scars of his battles, the joy of his victories, and the dreams of his future.

He walks away, out into the vast world that I have created but not yet explored, and I stare after him with mixed emotions, knowing that for now he will be close by, that there are many more dances to come…but knowing with just as much certainty that someday I will have to say goodbye, to let go of his hand and watch him walk away forever, to then turn my back and step out of his world, when his story is completed. Destiny will call me to create another, different world, just as it will call him to leave me behind and step into someone else’s world—someone who might break his heart, or fail to see the beautiful soul that I have seen in him—or, then again, into the world of someone who might be searching for him even now, someone who needs him even more than I do. It is that thought that gives me the courage to stay here in this world, to dance with the next person to approach me from the crowd, to fall in love with all of them even though I know I will have to let them go one day. This is my sacrifice, my gift to the ones who do not have my gift to create worlds and breathe life into souls.

Is this how it felt to God when He created a world, breathed life into its people, knew from the beginning their faults and fears, foresaw the day that they would turn their backs and walk away, watched His Son fall in love with them, knowing they would break His heart? Am I sharing the feelings of Elohim the Creator in a way that other people can’t? Are the emotions I feel at the keyboard a communion with God that others never experience? Are the loss, the pain, the heartbreak, gifts? Rare, precious windows into a chamber of God’s soul that those who have never created a world and fallen in love with it have never had the chance to look through? Do writers understand their God in a way that others never could?

In writing, creating, directing the lives of our characters and yet being able to watch them make decisions for themselves whether those decisions ultimately bring them joy or pain, always being there even though the characters don’t see us, feeling every bit of their pain with them, weeping as they weep and question destiny or fate, because we see the happy ending that they can’t, but cannot show it to them, only promise them that it is there; silently asking them to trust us with their hearts, their dreams, their lives, knowing that for some that trust will be rewarded with “happily ever after,” while others will not even live to see the end of the story.

It leads me to fear the mind of God, to see it equally as a place of terrible beauty and unfathomable pain, and yet to write only draws me deeper. The pain can be shattering, and the joy every bit as destructive in its intensity. The beauty of my characters’ souls, and the independent life they take upon themselves, show me how completely unworthy I am to be in this place of control. It sends me running to the feet of the One whose control over my life I no longer fear because I have felt His pain. I have tasted the bitterness of allowing suffering in the life of someone I created, and it makes me want to lift my head even through the worst of the pain and tell Him, “It’s okay—I know You feel my pain as much as I do. I don’t hold it against You. I know You have Your reasons, even if I don’t see them now, and I still trust You.”

We talk about the writing life as if it’s all a carousel of coffee, chocolate, rejection letters, writer’s block, and inspired all-nighters, and we joke about having a “socially acceptable form of schizophrenia” like it’s no big deal. And yes, sometimes it’s good to keep it light to keep from going crazy. But the truth is that there’s much more to it than that.

The moment of creation, the dance with a stranger that sparks a bond as deep as a soul, the anguish, the piercing joy…

These are what it’s like to be a writer.

Does Survivor's Gay Christian Couple Represent Christianity Well?

So, if you watched the twenty-ninth season finale of Survivor, you are no doubt well aware that a lot of conflicting feelings and opinions have been set off by two of the contestants featured in the show: the professedly Christian, openly gay couple, Josh and Reed.

Now, my purpose here is not to debate the issue of homosexuality itself. There are a library's worth of videos and blog posts and articles and books that have already been written from every angle of that subject, and I can pretty well guarantee I have nothing original to contribute in that arena. What I am far more interested in discussing are the statements made by a young lady apparently picked at random out of the live audience at the filming of the finale.
Referring to Josh's and Reed's conduct during the filming of the show, and the encouragement and inspiration that they seem to be providing for others of similar persuasion, this young lady in the audience said she believed that these men "represented our faith really well". (Referring, of course, to Christianity.)
The question that I would like to explore is simply: Do Josh and Reed actually represent the Christian faith well?
The simple answer depends on what we take this young lady's statement to mean.
If she means that Josh and Reed are accurate representatives of the condition and mindset of most professing Christians and Christian churches in our modern world, then I believe she is completely correct. I'll explain why in just a minute.
On the other hand, if we take her statement to mean that Josh and Reed accurately embody the essence of what Christianity is supposed to be (and, based on her later statement that "love is love at the end of the day," I do believe that this interpretation is what she intended), then the answer to my question is a resounding "No," and this is the side of the question that I'm going to discuss first.
From Reed's statement, spoken during the finale, that a person "can follow Jesus and still be gay," we can with some measure of confidence deduce that he's not just using the term "Christianity" in the vague generic sense that people sometimes use simply as a way of saying "I'm not a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist." I feel confident in saying that he is referring to actual, Christ-based Christianity, and this is an important fact to establish, as it provides us with a solid foundation from which to critique Reed's professions (words) versus his lifestyle (actions). (And by the way, the reason I seem to be focusing more on Reed is simply that he is the one who made the specific statement that I am critiquing at the moment.)
So let's begin our critique with a quick series of logical deductions:
Reed professes to be a follower of Jesus.
If he lives his life as a follower of Jesus, he obviously must believe and agree with the things that Jesus said.
Jesus claimed to be God (John 10:30, John 14:9-11), therefore if Reed is consistent he believes that Jesus is God.
If Jesus is God, the entire Bible is His word--not just the part printed in red ink. (2 Timothy 3:16)
If Jesus is God and the entire Bible is His word, then the statements made in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, wherein homosexuality is labeled "an abomination", are Jesus' own statements (defeating the common argument that "Jesus didn't actually didn't say anything about homosexuality").
The conclusion we must draw from this is that Jesus opposes homosexuality and intends for sexual intimacy to be confined to one man and one woman within marriage (Matthew 19:4-5).
Therefore, while Josh and Reed may have represented Christianity well in some areas such as their honesty, attitudes, and kindness throughout this season of Survivor, the simple fact is that their lifestyle does not represent what Jesus desires and expects the lives of His followers to look like in the area of sexual behavior.
Does this mean they're horrible people? No. Does it mean they're not truly Christians in the sense of being genuinely born again? Not necessarily, although that is certainly on the table as a worst-case scenario and personally I would be very concerned by such an extreme discrepancy between their professed beliefs and their lifestyle. However, at the other end of the table we have a best-case scenario, which is that they are both true born-again Christians who have merely slipped into a grievous inconsistency and need to turn away from it into a lifestyle and sexuality that are in line with the teachings of Christ.
Now: you can scream, rant, argue, yell at me, call me close-minded, whatever you want. The simple fact is that, like it or not, that is what the Bible says. And as I said, my point isn't to debate the issue of homosexuality itself. I am more interested in discussing the implications of the suggestion that Josh and Reed represent Christianity well, and this brings us back to the question: "Do Josh and Reed accurately represent the state of affairs as a whole in Christianity today?" and my answer to that was "Yes."
Here's why: Granting Josh and Reed the benefit of any and all doubts and assuming that they truly are Christians, they are nevertheless living in a way that is wildly inconsistent with what Christianity actually teaches. And this is a characteristic that has become all too common. If I had to choose two words to describe Christianity in twenty-first century America, the first would be "lukewarm," and the second would be "inconsistent". (I include both and put them in that order because I believe that the first one is what allows the second one, but that is a separate discussion for another time.)
And I'm not just talking about inconsistency as it pertains to homosexuality, although I do see a lot of that as well. Even many heterosexuals are becoming passive about the issue, brushing it off as "not that big of a deal".
But the problem is far more widespread than that. American Christianity is riddled with inconsistencies in many forms.
Gap theory, Day Age theory, Framework Hypothesis, Theistic Evolution, and any other attempt to "merge" or "blend" the Genesis account of creation with the secular concept of evolution is an inconsistency.
Professing the desire to "train up a child in the way he should go" (Proverbs 22:6) and then sending him off to be educated instead by the public school system, an institution built on the tenets of secular humanism, is an inconsistency.
Compromising on the Bible's clearly laid-out principles in order to avoid seeming "close-minded" to the world is an inconsistency.
Claiming to be a Christian while abusing drugs or alcohol, cheating on taxes, telling a "little white lie", taking advantage of others for personal gain...all of these are inconsistencies.
In light of this image, Survivor's gay Christian couple, Josh and Reed, seem fitting poster children, and in this sense that young lady from the audience was exactly right: they do represent our faith well in the sense of encapsulating what Christianity looks like in America today.
But they do not represent what Christianity should be, what Jesus desires and expects it to be. Those two images are still very far apart. And the way to close that gap is not by meeting in the middle--after all, Jesus did not believe in neutral ground (Matthew 12:30).
The way to close the gap is to realize the inconsistencies that we have allowed into our lives, acknowledge them for what they are, seek God's forgiveness, commit before God and our Christian family to annihilate them, and with the help of God set out to bring every single aspect of our lives, no matter how seemingly small or insignificant or mundane, into submission and alignment with what Jesus intends and desires from His followers. Remember, He said "If you love me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15)

My Thoughts on The Ken Ham versus Bill Nye Debate

I'm sure most of you probably heard about the debate between Answers in Genesis founder Ken Ham and Bill Nye, "The Science Guy", which took place on February 4th. A lot of you have probably even watched it online. If you haven’t (shame on you), you can do so Here - and I strongly recommend that you do. As in, go there right now and don't finish reading this post until you have.

Are we good? Good.

My work schedule prevented me watching the debate live, but I was able to see it the next day. Since then, quite a few people have asked me for my thoughts about it, so I decided I might as well write up a post on my opinions and put it up here. Enjoy! : )

In talking to people about the debate, one of the most common things I've heard is disappointment that Ken Ham wasn't bold enough or aggressive enough in his presentation. Honestly, I was floored the first time I heard this. Set aside the fact that, in general, accusing Ken Ham of not being bold is roughly equal to calling Ronald Reagan a liberal; looking specifically at the scenario of the debate, I saw no difference. Ken Ham was assertive in his presentation and gave no ground to Bill Nye's arguments, but he did so while remaining completely respectful and professional about it.
The trouble is, there is a very fine line between "Bold" and "In-your-face," and all too often people with good intentions and a lot of passion inadvertently cross that line, making themselves seem extremely obnoxious. When that happens, people stop listening. Proverbs 16 tells us that pleasant words are persuasive, and 1 Peter tells us to defend our faith with gentleness and respect. Ken Ham's presentation and conduct were pleasant, polite, gentle, respectful, and considerate... and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Even atheists who watched the debate have posted comments on Facebook and Twitter commending Mr. Ham for his professional and polite behavior.

I found this to be especially refreshing when put in contrast to Mr. Nye's attitude of mockery and condescension. I must admit that I was a bit bewildered by his multiple insinuations directed not just towards creationists specifically, but towards Kentuckians in general, telling them in one case that they should be very concerned that no university in their state offered such-and-such a degree. As if just having the Creation Museum and (in the near future) the Ark Encounter in their state has somehow already set them on a path of scientific decline. Mr. Nye is not the first to suggest that the mere presence of AiG's facilities on Kentucky soil is having detrimental effects on the state, and I am certain he will not be the last, but honestly it's a very shoddy argument--if it can even be considered an argument at all.

I was also very annoyed by Mr. Nye's incessant referrals to "Ken Ham's creation model," "Ken Ham's flood," etc, as if Mr. Ham is the first person in history to believe these things, or just makes them up while the rest of us fall blindly into line as his little cult followers. In the first place, Mr. Nye should review his history books: mankind believed in a divine creation first, long before anyone ever thought of evolution, and that belief has never disappeared despite any and all efforts to extinguish it. And while naturalist theories of origins are not as new as many people believe, they’re still the new kids on the block by comparison.

Furthermore, although Ken Ham has definitely become a figurehead of the creation science and apologetics movement, it’s not because it’s all his idea. With all due respect and admiration for Mr. Ham, I would believe in biblical creation with or without him. My belief is dependent on the word of God, not on anything Ken Ham or anyone else says or does. Yes, Ken Ham has been an immense encouragement to me in my beliefs and ministry; I have learned more from him about science, theology, witnessing, and apologetics than I can say, and I know many others can say the same thing. But Ken Ham is not the reason I believe in a literal six days, a roughly-6,000-year-old earth, or a global flood. I believe it because the God Who cannot lie said it, clearly and explicitly.

It was obvious from statements made throughout the debate that Mr. Nye enjoys thinking of himself as “a reasonable man” whose beliefs are based entirely on logic and facts rather than faith. This became very ironic when, in response to one of Mr. Nye’s repeated assertions that creationism is detrimental to scientific progress and discovery, Ken Ham pointed out various scientists responsible for wonderful inventions and discoveries—such as the MRI machine—who were also devout young-earth creationists. Now, a man who was truly reasonable would look at this evidence and rightly deduce that creationism doesn’t actually impede progress and discovery after all. But that was not Mr. Nye’s response. He completely ignored this devastating rebuttal of his assertion and kept right on repeating it, going so far as to say that if creationism is allowed to propagate, science in the United States will deteriorate to the point that we lose our position as a world power and a leader in technology.

His patriotism is commendable, but once again, he needs to check his history books. America rose from being a collection of half-starved colonies to being a major world power long before the ideas of evolution were generally accepted. Granted, not all of those who helped found and build this country were creationists or even Christians, but those people were the minority. The United States was founded on Christian principles by a majority of people who believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. So how is it that those same beliefs are, according to Mr. Nye, going to be America’s downfall? It would seem he is not quite as reasonable as he likes to believe.

When you watch the debate, make sure you stick around for the Q&A at the end. In my opinion, it does more to reveal the true nature of the overall creation/evolution debate than any other part of the production. I won’t discuss the whole thing here—this post is way too long already—but I will point out a couple of things that really jumped out at me.

1.  Throughout the debate, but particularly towards the end, Mr. Nye begged Ken Ham for examples of the creation model of origins accurately predicting a scientific discovery. Besides ignoring the order and function in the world that could not exist were nature all that exists, Mr. Nye is exposing an enormous blind spot in his ideas. He can’t see the forest for the trees, as it were. The fact that we can predict anything, the fact that we can know anything, the fact that laws of nature and logic and physics exist, can only be explained if the Bible is, in fact, true! If nature were all there was, there would be no laws of logic. If the laws of nature were the only force governing the matter in the universe, that matter could never have randomly arranged itself via chaotic processes into orderly, functional forms. The only reason science is possible is because there is an order, a design, and unchanging laws of nature and logic, set into place by an orderly, creative, unchanging and logical Creator.

2.  In response to the question “What would make you change your mind?” Mr. Nye stated the following: “We would need one piece of evidence. We would need the fossil that swam from one layer [of sedimentary rock] to the next. We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding. We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not. We would need evidence that rock layers can form in 4,000 years instead of an extraordinary amount... Bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately.”

That sounds great on the surface—Mr. Nye, that “reasonable man” he loves to call himself, is just following the evidence where it leads him, open to the possibility of being wrong—but if you take his statement apart and look closely it’s a different story.

“We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to the next.” This deserves a discussion unto itself, one we don’t have time for here. For now, suffice it to say that there are fish fossilized across multiple layers of sediment, not to mention polystrate trees that, while they aren’t living creatures that would try to swim out of the layers burying them, certainly won’t last for thousands or millions of years to be fossilized gradually.

“We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding. We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not.” These are both very telling statements. Both the universe’s expansion and the distances of the stars are well-established, so by implying that one cannot believe in both these and in creationism, Mr. Nye is bringing back the age-old accusation, “Creationists deny the facts of science!” The truth is just the opposite. There is no reason whatsoever that a young-earth (biblical) creationist cannot believe that the universe is expanding or that the stars are very far away. The Bible itself alludes to the universe’s expansion when it describes God “stretching out the heavens” and there are solid scientific answers to the question of how starlight reaches the earth within a 6,000 year timeframe, even from such great distances.

“We would need evidence that rock layers can form in 4,000 years instead of an extraordinary amount.” The Mt. Saint Helens eruption of 1980 provided all the evidence any “reasonable man” should need to believe that. Rock layers were formed over periods of hours, days, and weeks that, according to evolutionary timescales, should have taken thousands of years or more to appear—irrefutable proof that, given the right catastrophic conditions, it only takes a little while.

So why, then, has Mr. Nye not “changed immediately” as he said he would if given this evidence? The answer is simple: his problem with creationism is not an intellectual problem, or an ignorance problem. It is a heart problem. The truth of creation necessarily means the existence of a Creator. The existence of a Creator equals moral accountability for the creation, and that is something that few people are willing to accept. Evolution is not the problem, it is a symptom, and a shelter that lost souls can run to for assurance of safety without having to acknowledge the lordship of Christ.

I would encourage all of you to pray earnestly for Mr. Nye, that his heart would be softened and that he would be willing to swallow his pride and acknowledge the Creator and Savior Who loves him very much.

*

So what? What did this debate (which has been referred to as everything from “The Debate of the Century” to “Scopes 2”) really accomplish?

Quite a lot, my friends, quite a lot. Of course there is the tremendous outreach value it has had and is still having. In addition to the 900 who actually attended the event live, millions have watched online and on the new DVD. Major news channels broadcasted coverage and excerpts of the debate. One way or another, untold millions have seen and heard a skillful presentation of the evidence for creation and of the gospel, the reason creation matters at all.

Additionally, a topic that has been challenging to get discussed in public forums has suddenly hit the mainstream and gone completely viral. The debate was the number one trending topic on Facebook and Twitter for several hours before and after it took place. Countless blogs and other social media pages have hosted discussions and subsequent debates. Personally, I have had total strangers hear me mention the debate and want to talk to me about it. This is a current event, a hot topic that people are interested in and want to talk about. Don’t let that go to waste! Christians, an incredible opening has been created for us. Watch the debate, then go out and start talking. Don’t waste this awesome opportunity.


Questions, thoughts, comments? I'd love to hear your take on the debate and get some discussion going. (hint-hint)

Movie Review - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey! (And a Giveaway)

*Warning: May Contain Spoilers! If you're interested in the giveaway, but don't want to read the review, just scroll down until you see bold font.*

While I wasn't able to go to the midnight premier as I had originally hoped, I was able to go see The Hobbit on its second day in theaters. Definitely the earliest I have ever gotten to see a newly-released movie. I hope I don't get uppity...
But enough of that! I'm sure you're all dying to hear my erudite and witty opinions of the film, right? (Or, more truthfully, I've already exhausted my entire family with my ravings and swoonings and shriekings and carryings-on and just need someone new to blather to.)
So here goes:

I was rather uneasy about the whole idea of The Hobbit being made into a trilogy of movies, and apparently my unease was shared by quite a few people. But after seeing An Unexpected Journey, I am no longer worried in the least.
There was quite a lot of filling in and fleshing out done, with a few additions that weren't in the book, but in my opinion it didn't harm the story in the least. (Like the air raid scene at the beginning of the movie The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe - it just helped ground the story and set up a rich, well-developed stage.) And, it's going to make for an absolutely fabulous trilogy of movies!
Much of the additional material ('additional' meaning 'not in the book') was for the purpose of setting The Hobbit up more solidly as the prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, making it a little easier for viewers to see how events are leading up to the War of the Ring. There were plenty of fun references and remarks included, too, that are only meaningful if you've seen the Lord of the Rings movies or read the books, which makes it fun.
There were other things added or expanded upon too, most of it for excitement and/or action purposes. For instance: for a resident of Middle Earth, it's perfectly natural that you should have a pack of orcs hunting you for no other reason than you tromped through their territory. But for a movie viewer, it's more exciting if the orc leader has a long-harbored grudge against the leader of your party and is hunting him down for vengeance. As I said earlier, I don't think it harmed the story at all.
I have to say, in spite of how many times I've read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, I never really grasped just how cool dwarfs could be. I absolutely love what Peter Jackson and the production team have done with the dwarf characters in this movie (and I'm totally going to have to write a story about dwarfs now!). And of course, the hats must go off to the actors who have done such amazing jobs with their roles!
I have this thing about dark, brooding characters, so naturally Thorin Oakenshield had my full attention from the get-go. But I also love the light-heartedness of the brothers Fili and Kili, which they blend perfectly with their skill as warriors. Oftentimes in characters of that type, one side is overdone while the other is left wanting, or else the transition from 'fun' mode to 'battle' mode seems awkward and unnatural. Not so with these two. They make it perfectly natural, and in fact remind me a little bit of my own brothers. : ) And of course, what's not to love about sweet, unassuming Bilbo Baggins? I love, love, love the honesty and sincerity that Martin Freeman has brought to his character, blended so well with Bilbo's feelings of inadequacy as a member of Thorin's party.

And Bilbo's speech at the end of the movie... one that wasn't in the book but is so good that it could have been... just made my heart melt. Gotta say it.
The cinematography of the movie was just as amazing as it was in the Lord of the Rings movies - sweeping landscapes that leave you totally convinced Middle Earth is a real place that is out there somewhere, panoramic shots of mountains, amazing CGI settings and graphics, and great action shots and sequences. There was just one kind of weird, distracting thing I noticed, when the dwarfs have all been captured by the goblins and the goblin king is taunting Thorin. The camera is cutting back and forth between them during their exchange, but every single time it cuts to Thorin his head is down, and he's slowly raising his eyes to fix the goblin king with a withering glare. Don't get me wrong, he's got glaring down to an art and the whole slowly-raising-his-eyes-which-are-blazing-with-hatred thing made for a great shot... the first time. The third and fourth times, it started getting a little weird. Probably just an editing error, and really nothing that even matters in light of the rest of the movie's sheer and massive epicness, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
And the soundtrack... oh, the soundtrack! I had chills listening to the dwarfs sing 'Misty Mountains' around Bilbo's hearth, the battle music was amazing, the Ring theme came in at just exactly the right moment, and the Shire theme (also coming in at exactly the right moments) was as heart-tugging and beautifully sweet as ever.

Which brings me to the second part of this post: The Giveaway!
The Ink Slinger is having a giveaway of The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey soundtracks, and you're invited to enter! I'm not familiar with The Dark Knight soundtrack, but it's by Hans Zimmer so it has to be amazing. And I am here to testify that the Hobbit soundtrack is one you will definitely want to add to your collection. So Click Here and get over to the Ink Slinger to enter the giveaway. And if you haven't seen The Hobbit yet, get thee to a theater and do so with all haste!

God Adventures

I'm currently reading Perelandra, the second book in C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy. I'm not very far into it yet, but one line in particular really grabbed my attention:

"A man who has been in another world does not come back unchanged."

This really resonated with me, because it made me think about my writing and how, as a fantasy writer, I have the privilege of 'voyaging', in a sense, to other worlds. Take Reyem, for instance. Reyem is the fictional world of Son of the Shield and the series following it. I've been discovering, exploring, and writing in that world for five-and-a-half years.

And I don't have to think twice to know that it's changed me.

Because of the time I've spent working on, thinking about, and praying about Son of the Shield as well as the overarching plot of the Adelfian Prophesies series as a whole, I have had to spend huge amounts of time studying and thinking about things like God's grace, His forgiveness, His sovereignty - all elements necessary to the story, that I wanted to be sure I was communicating well. Had I not written Son of the Shield, I might never have thought about those things as much as or in the specific ways I have.
While writing in Reyem I've lived through the losses of loved ones, personal disappointments and stresses, and financial struggles. I've also seen God provide comfort, solace, hope, peace, courage, as well as physical and financial needs, without fail. All of that has, in one way or another, entwined itself with my writing. Sometimes the situation I was living in helped me work through part of the story. Sometimes an element of the story that I had already worked through and poured prayer into turned out to be God's provision, ready for me even before I knew I needed it. Sometimes it was as simple as knowing exactly how to describe a character's feelings, because I had experienced them myself.

My 'voyage' to the world of Reyem and the time I have spent there have been well invested. I believe it is an adventure that God has invited me to take part in, at least partially for the purpose of teaching me more about Himself.
That's the thing about 'God adventures': they're always for a purpose, and they never leave us the way they found us.

The Value of Christian Book Reviews

Does your opinion matter?

It's one of the easiest things in the world to do - write a review of a book you've read, and with just a few clicks of the mouse and a bit of Copy and Paste, you can post it to any or all of a dozen consumer or literary websites for all the world to see.
But does your review, all by itself, make a whit of difference amid the buzz and glare of the internet? What if you're the 100th... or even the 1000th person to review a book? Will anyone ever read your review? Will they care? Will your review have any effect at all on their buying or reading decision?
It's a multi-faceted question with a multi-faceted answer. I'm going to share my thoughts and observations on the subject in what I hope will be a helpful fashion.
As a volunteer reviewer for several different publishing houses, and an avid all-around reader, I have a lot of books pass through my hands, I read a lot of reviews, and I post a lot of reviews. On a few occasions I've been the first one (presumably in the world) to post a Barnes&Noble, Amazon, or CBD review of a particular title after its release. In cases like that, it's pretty safe to assume that my review will be read and that it will have a hand in someone's buying or reading decision. But there have been times when I was that 20th or 70th or 100th person to post a review, too, and in those cases the odds aren't as good. So does it still matter?
My personal opinion is 'Yes', and here's why:
Every individual is just that: an individual, with a unique sense of perception - a unique lens through which they view the world and everything in it. So, while the Christian community as a whole may see the same general flaws or virtues in a particular title, the individuals within that community will have unique opinions on the details surrounding those virtues or flaws. And, while each of us is unique, there will always be someone out there who has a perspective similar to ours, and those are the people who will benefit most from an honest, specific, and detailed review of a book.
We've all seen the whooping, giddy, rave reviews that say absolutely nothing specific about the book itself, just about how much they loved it. (I'll be honest and confess that I've written a few - only a few, mind you - of those myself. *cringes* Sorry.) And we've all seen the enraged (usually profanity-laced) reviews that say only how much the reviewer hated the book, and nothing at all about the details of why.
Those reviews are not helpful.
Most of us don't have unlimited book-buying funds, and can't afford to spend precious book money on dreck, so we depend on detailed, specific, and well-thought-out reviews to make our buying and reading decisions. So the first step in making sure your book review matters is to make it a review worth reading.
Be specific. Give details about scenes or characters or concepts that appealed to you - or that turned you off. Explain your reasons. This can be difficult to carry off without including spoilers (something you do not want to do) and might take a little practice to get the hang of, but it can be done. Saying a book was awful doesn't mean a whole lot. Saying that a book contains language, gory violence, or illicit sex is helpful. Saying a book is wonderful doesn't mean much. Saying that a book contained a beautiful message of heroism and sacrifice and exciting action and great character development is helpful.
Be generous with star ratings. And I mean generous in both directions. I've heard many people insist that that magical fifth star should be saved only for the best, the greatest, the book with which you could find absolutely no fault. Or that the one-star review should be reserved only for the vilest, most treasonous, blasphemous filth under Heaven. The trouble with that approach is that, if you avoid the extremes, you're left in the middle. Reviews in the middle generally don't get read. Sites like Amazon provide a list of the five-star reviews, and a list of the one-star reviews. No list of three-star reviews. Readers want to know why other readers loved or hated a book, not why they were rather indifferent. I'm not saying you should give a book a one-star rating just because it failed to thrill you, or that you should give it five stars just because there was nothing obscenely wrong with it. Some books are just mediocre, plain and simple, and deserve a mediocre review. But if a book genuinely delighted you, why not give it five stars? And, since most of us probably try to avoid reading vile, treasonous, blasphemous filth entirely, we need some other landmark for the low end of our opinions. So if a book made you angry, or offended you (even without being vile, etc.), go ahead and give it that one-star rating if you feel that's what it deserves.
Don't be afraid to judge a secular book on a Christian scale. This one is touchy, and I can just see people winding themselves up to pounce on me for saying it. I am not saying that we should expect a secular book or author to conform to Christian standards. Why on Earth would or should they? But remember what I said earlier about viewing the world through your own lens. As a Christian reader, you're writing reviews for the benefit of other Christian readers. If a book contains something that might be offensive to another Christian, say so.
Don't be afraid to stand alone in your opinion. It might be just what someone else needs to hear. Anyone who knows me knows that I relish going against the flow (comes from too much Wallace ancestry, I guess). But even so, when a book's page on the consumer website boasts 70+ reviews averaging four-and-a-half or five stars, and you're sitting at your desk preparing to post your one-star review, it can be a little unnerving. You almost have to wonder "Is it just me? Am I just looking at this in the wrong way? Was I just in a bad mood when I read this book?" and it can be tempting to 'tweak' your review - just a little.
Certainly you don't want to be unkind or rude in your review. But if you have solid, definable reasons for disliking a book, then don't be afraid to stand up and dislike it for all you're worth. I can think of two particular instances in which I vehemently disliked a book, but was starkly alone in my opinion. In one of those instances, I posted a very indignant one-star review on a webpage beside over 70 five-star reviews. It was a 'Christian' book being praised by scores of Christian readers, and needless to say I felt a bit like a duck in a hen house. But I had solid, biblical reasons for disliking it, so I posted the review anyway. 
In the other instance, I was part of a ladies' discussion group and had some very serious issues with the book we were reading through. Again, it was a Christian book by a Christian author, but I strongly disagreed with many of the assertions and ideas it contained, and I said so openly to the group. Most of them brushed me off or tried to explain to me how and why I was wrong. It was only weeks later, after we had finished the book, that one of the ladies thanked me for expressing my opinion so strongly. Come to find out, it had encouraged her to look more critically at the book's content, to rethink and weigh it carefully rather than taking it at face value. It made me realize that many times, we as Christians see a 'Christian' book by a Christian author, so we drop our guard and assume that the content must be biblical and agreeable. 'Speak Friend and enter,' as it were.
So if your review of a book is rational, well-thought-out, and biblically founded, don't be afraid to stand out and voice your opinion.
Reviewing old books is okay, too. The hottest new releases are the ones getting most of the attention, but the old books (whether old means a year old or a hundred years old) still get read, and readers still like being able to hear other people's opinions of them. I've had many people find my book review blog not because they were looking for a Christian book review blog to follow, but because they were looking for a review of a specific book - most of the time an older one. Old books need reviews too.

Book reviews are extremely important to maintaining balance in the literary world. I know that sounds lofty, but in a lot of ways, it is. Your perspective is important, and your opinion does matter.

Your thoughts?