Author of The Dark Man, available from Marcher Lord Press

I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world.

If there’s a more captivating line in all of fictional literature outside of Shakespeare, I’ve never heard it. I’ve mentioned it here before, and I’m certain I’ll mention it again. In the aftermath of the horrible Haitian earthquake, and the subsequent calumnious outcry directed at God, this line haunts me; and it should haunt you as well.

Camus’ Meursault is a demarcation. He’s a pivot-point into opposing worldviews. He’s a metaphor for the choice between meaning and meaninglessness that all consistent thinkers encounter. He is a window on the Problem of Evil.

The POE fascinates me. I’ve written on it extensively: a thesis which I believe contains some original work on the origin of evil, as alluded to in CD’s latest comment, The Dark Man (attack helicopters),-those of you who read it (thank you, much appreciated) should recognize the POE content-and my current work-in-progress, which is an all-out fictional study of evil in the world, not to mention my prattling here with regard to the POE.

I’m not obsessed, and I don’t have a basement dungeon where weird things take place. It’s just that evil presents observable evidence for the existence of God, and it is a subject and experience that awakens the heart and conscience of all but the most hardened and sociopathic among us. That’s a powerful and uncommon combination.

What a horrid scene Haiti is, and our hearts go out to all those caught in this tragedy.

With that said and believed, we of all stripes can agree it’s a tragedy, as in a great misfortune or calamitous event. We can all feel deeply for the victims. However, can we genuinely all believe that an evil has taken place? I think not, and Meursault is the demarcation:

Mamam died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.

This is what opening oneself to the gentle indifference of the world is. The world, which necessarily includes all events within it, is indifferent precisely because matter, energy, space, time, and any other physicality if there be such a thing, do not possess properties necessary for non-indifference. The gentle indifference of the world means that whether the universe flames out, dies a heat loss death, or even stretches out into an infinite future, there is nothing to care ultimately about what happens or to effect a difference on this particular piece of conglomerate matter we call earth. Among other names, we call this Naturalism, and all the observable articles of nature cannot alter this indifference.

Do you really believe, in accordance with its own power, that the contingent, particular organization of matter and energy called man can change this or endow tragedy with lasting meaning, despite his fleeting care? Camus was correct: without God we should open ourselves.

Under this view, there’s no such thing as evil. There are events. There are perturbations of matter and energy. There are earthquakes. They are but occurrences, not meaningfully different under Naturalism than the gravity exerted between Jupiter and Saturn.  And this brings us to the great paradox: evil is a proof for God’s existence, rather than an argument for his non-existence.

Have we discussed the axiological argument for God’s existence yet? Here’s one formulation of the argument, presented in deductive form:

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

It just so happens that the existence of evil requires the existence of objective moral values and duties. Hence:

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Evil exists.

Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

There’s much that could be said in defense of these premises. Let’s just consider evil, though. Is it really evil? The choice appears clear to me, and it resides at Meursault’s demarcation: will you accept evil as truly evil, or open yourself to the gentle indifference of the world?

Ironically, with God we have the necessary element both to make sense of evil, and to see evil for the evil it truly is, both of which cannot obtain under Naturalism. More on this later…

PS-Yes, those who do not believe in God may be good, moral persons (which does not contradict the doctrine of total depravity you Arminians and Calvinists out there), and I name many as my friends. That’s not the point of this post, and if you are a Christian who makes that claim you may find yourself in the next Silly Christian Arguments post. So stop doing that…it’s silly. The salient point is whether there can be Goodness without God.

I had in mind to discuss the silliness of Christian relativism, but Scita > Scienda is off and running with it. So, let’s move on to another silly Christian argument. When pressed with an apparent contradiction, a paradox, or any other uncomfortable conclusion or contention, Christians will often respond by claiming that God can do the impossible.

Quit doing that. It’s silly.

Fast Tube by Casper

I have several abilities God lacks. I’m rather proficient at them, actually. I’m an expert liar. When it comes to stealing, God can’t even begin to compete with me. I can sin all the live long day, and rest assured that I’ve done something God cannot do.

But let’s not leave it at that. I can make a second best decision, or even the poorest decision imaginable. God? He can only make the best decision. I can believe false propositions and fail to believe true ones. God? Nope. I can even commit suicide. God? He cannot destroy himself, nor can He create another God like himself. And, as the puzzle goes, I can build something so heavy I myself cannot lift it.

What are we to conclude, then? That there are things God cannot do?

No, not exactly. The verse Christians generally misinterpret (this is definitely one for our ongoing list, btw) is Matt 19:26: Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 

Note carefully the construct here: with God all things are possible. Things include those entities, propositions, or events that are rational; that is, they conform to what is analytically and formally possible pursuant to the rules of inference and basic laws of logic. For instance, the basic law of thought and rationality, the law of non-contradiction, states that a thing cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. Any thing that breaks this law is not a thing; it is no-thing. Irrationality does not produce things.

Likewise, the contrary of a  proposition that is analytically true–true by definition and self-evident–cannot be rational; therefore, it cannot be a thing. It is irrational for a triangle to be anything but three-sided.

Or, conclusions derived contrary to the basic rules of inference, say, modus ponens, are not things. Moreover, claiming an effect without a cause does not produce the rationality required for a thing. And so on.

Now that we’ve briefly considered thingness, let’s affirm that God can do any thing. What He cannot do is no-thing. God can raise the dead; that’s a thing. God cannot lie (A lying Christian God is like a four-sided triangle or a married bachelor), because irrational statements are no-things. Thus, Jesus was correct in asserting that all things are possible with God. Note also, the force of the text. God is very capable of performing things that for us are impossible. Though they are impossible for us, they are not impossible analytically, by the laws of logic, or invalid under the rules of inference.

The upshot of all of this is for Christians to resist the claim that God can perform the impossible, unless it’s clearly stated that what is in view is what is impossible for us, like raising a man from the dead, not the formally impossible. Don’t say God can make 2 x 4=9 or that he can create himself. Even God can’t make the nonsensical into the sensical, or the irrational into the rational.

There’s a related concern I’ll touch on briefly. It’s often claimed by Christians that what is rational from our perspective is not rational in other dimensions, or the supernatural realm where God resides and operates. Great care needs to be taken when approaching this subject. It’s true that other dimensions, or perhaps even the supernatural, might have properties of which we are not aware. Is there a sense in which sovereignty and free will, or other similar paradoxes could be harmonized by dimensions we’re unaware of? Perhaps, but what is absolutely necessary to maintain is that contradictions cannot be harmonized, and that what is formally irrational here must be formally irrational there.

Paradoxes differ from contradictions. Contradictions are formally irrational as discussed above. Paradoxes are not. Contradictions can never be true in any possible world, and even God cannot make sense of them or understand them, because they are no-things. The trinity, for example, is a paradox, not a contradiction. And if God is not rational, how could we ever hope to understand him?

Yes, this is a post aimed at Christians, but you skeptics need to quit claiming that an electron can be at two different places at the same time and in the same relationship, or that matter and energy can arise from nothing on its own power. Just sayin’…:)

Sometimes you just can’t force yourself to answer a silly internet argument, or wherever it’s encountered, for the 111th time.  It becomes so repulsively repetitive and trite that you’ll ignore a blog post or comment altogether. That’s probably the best course of action, actually; however, I believe another option is to create a repository of answers to link to in lieu of composing the 111th response to the same silly ol’ arguments. It’s an elegant solution I’ve seen used effectively elsewhere, and I’d like to begin stocking the repository here, to be added to as time goes on. Feel free to suggest possible new entries based on your own travels.

Right. But, first, let’s be fully aware and frank that atheists and skeptics are not the only offenders! In fact, if we’re honest, Christian theists are masters of the silly argument or blog comment. To that end, I’ll also be contributing to a theist’s repository of silly arguments as well. It’s only fair, so if you’re a skeptical type or an atheist, don’t think you’re being singled out, or that this post suggests that all atheists are silly arguers. Are there any atheist or skeptics constant Areopagus readers lurking out there, btw? Feel free to contribute.

Here’s my first: the highly irritating and non-sensical lightning argument that normally devolves into a bronze Age goat herder charge. It typically proceeds as follows:

Mankind used to believe that God(s) threw lightning bolts from the sky. Now science has explained adequately how lightning works. Therefore, it is foolish to believe God influences the physical realm.

Fast Tube by Casper

Silly, indeed. Quit using this argument to prove anything more than the true proposition that we now know the natural causes that produce lightning. Until, of course, we learn even better how those natural causes work.

There are sophisticated arguments similar to this silly one that argue inductively that our increasing knowledge of the physical world has historically pushed the utility of God or the supernatural as a scientific explanation to the edges of the universe. That is not in view here; however, even such arguments do not demonstrate that God is not related to the physical realm, nor can they. A moment’s thought should confirm this.

Your moment is passed. Now, after the initial silliness has passed, generally the goat herders are not far behind. Here it is claimed that the skeptic is armed with science, while the hapless and deluded theist relies upon the oral traditions of Bronze Age desert nomad goat herders–there are a multitude of variations on the theme–to arrive at truth.

Again, quit the silliness. We’re confident that Bronze Age, and Stone Age for that matter, peoples understood that 1+1=2, or that a triangle has three sides. Which of these statements is no longer true? Develop it countless ways; the truth remains: what was true then necessarily, is true now necessarily. The time and place and Age in which the truth was apprehended is frankly irrelevant.

Not to mention that the New Testament was not written in the Bronze Age, but as I’ve said, that’s wholly irrelevant. Bronze Age arguments are ridiculous, and amount to nothing more than mere bluster and irrational ridicule. What’s true must be determined on other grounds. Roughly, Bronze Age arguments are genetic fallacies.

Can’t you just hear skeptics in the year 4000 ridiculing people for their Space Age or Computer Age beliefs?

Though learning rapidly, I’m currently no expert on the publishing business, Christian or otherwise.  Thus, I really don’t have anything worthwhile to add to this discussion over at scita >scienda. However, as a writer, I do have some tangential comments to offer, comments that in no way demean the discussion occurring over at S>S.

Article 13 of the Belgic Confession states the following:

Article 13: The Doctrine of God’s Providence

We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.

Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.

We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.

This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father.

In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.

For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.

I general terms, then, God is in charge of everything that comes to pass. For the Christian writer, as for the Christian, this truth should never be too far out in front or too far behind. In fact, it should be woven through every written word, and seen clearly between the lines of every written text. And not only that, when it comes to what we as writers do with a completed text, God’s providence should be our story.

What if you wrote an entire novel and no one ever read it? What about two? Ten?

Actually, that’s impossible for the Christian author. My publisher, Marcher Lord Press, stresses this very truth: there’s first and foremost the audience of one. It’s my publisher’s very first tip in writing, and you can read it here. I have a sign over my desk that reads an audience of one. I’ve bought in to this idea, that if God were your only audience, and He certainly is watching, it’s a better audience than you could ever hope to speak to through your writing.

It’s the same for the preacher with a small congregation. Not only are you preaching to just a few folks on Sunday, but to the great heavenly host and the church universal. The audience of one, truly believed, is an astounding truth. Not only does it have meaning for preachers and writers, but for the life of every Christian who has ever lived. How we worry at times about writing, and other such pursuits when millions have lived in obscurity, or worse. For those who lives have seemed meaningless, forgotten, hopeless, or lived righteously in vain, I remind you of the audience of one. 

He’s always there. He sees. He cares. He doesn’t read the book of your life with one eye on the TV. He doesn’t consider the conflict of your life story fictional. He doesn’t consider your inner drives, aspirations, pains, and emotions–after all you are the main character of your life–as somehow less than reality. He’s intimately involved in your story from beginning to end. Would you really consider a million human readers a better audience given what we know of God as Christians?

He is also not fleeting, not contingent, not becoming, not to be renovated by fire at the last Day. The paper you write on will fade. Your book will be forgotten on bookshelves, if it makes it that far. Computers will rust away; digital files will corrupt and be lost. But the audience of one is eternal: there is no shadow of turning in Him. A written story and a life story offered to the audience of one thereby become eternal stories, flickers of that everlasting glory that is God almighty.

As the confession states, as does God’s word, God is in control of all things that come to pass. Guess what…that includes whether you will ever be published, where you will be published, and how many pages of your book ever are read. He has his own reasons for everything that comes to pass. Ours is just to find our obedient place in His grand scheme. If yours is writing, write to the glory of the audience of one. You can have no higher calling and no greater readership, published or not.

As Randy Brandt would say, “here’s a rant.”

In light of my non-post on Reformation Day last Saturday, I offer the following: the church is in need of reformation, not revival.

Revival benefits a doctrinally sound church whose adherents are obedient, by adding numbers that may be trained into disciples. In doctrinally sound churches whose members have become slothful or have shipwrecked their faith, revival may be successful in exhorting and edifying existing Christians within the church to action, as in Rev 3:20. However, is revival beneficial for a doctrinally unsound church or a church with aberrant practices? What, after all, would be the purpose of reviving doctrinally unsound churches? Can there be a good purpose to revive doctrinally unsound churches?

It seems to me this would only encourage and excite bad belief and bad practice.

I saw a sign outside a church today on the way to pick up the lad from school. No, the sign was not on the way to pick up the lad; I was. Nevertheless, the church’s marquis featured the following in big letters: We are the only hands God has.

Call me theologically pedantic, but the message was all wrong.

Granted, it may have simply been intended as a call to action in this dark world. It may have simply been intended to urge Christians to help those in need. No argument there, but why not just say Christians, help those in need. Why not quote instead Matthew 25:40?

Or, perhaps, the message was intended to convey the truth that God is non-corporeal in nature. If so, it’s difficult to see how we as God’s hands would be included in the message. It would simply say: God is a spirit without a body, or something similar.

What I suspect, though, was something more significant. My best estimate is that the sign represents a common thought within modern Christianity whereby God does not act apart from the will of His saints. Reborn man has dominion over the earth, and through the force of faith, determines what God does and does not do. Why on earth, or in heaven, would we or God want to revive this message, or the church that proclaims it? What is required is reformation.

Sometimes the thought is disseminated this way: God rules the world through the prayers of his saints. Other times this is said: God would never override the free will of his creatures. Still other times the thought comes through as The Prince of the power of the air rules this world or God will not do this that or the other unless you speak it into existence.

Some of these are worse than others–some are downright occultic–but they all fall woefully short of sound biblical teaching. What they all have in common is a misconstrual of God’s sovereignty, and thus His nature. Why would we seek to revive them?

Again, what the church needs, the American church at least, is reformation. Speaking of hands, how about Deuteronomy 32:39-42:

See now that I myself am He! There is no god beside me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.

I lift my hand to heaven and declare: As surely as I live forever, when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me.

I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders.

If we’re God’s only hands, who’s gonna volunteer for this assignment? Who’s gonna grasp the sword of judgment, or draw back the bow and make the arrows drunk with blood? God forbid, someone out there would probably raise their hand, but I think most of us get the point. And certainly, who of the hands among us will raise their hand and say: I lift my hand to heaven and declare: As surely as I live forever…

God forgive us. I know that God does not have hands. I also know He does not need them; He spoke the heavens and the earth into existence without them. I also know that we are called to represent Him on this earth. But it’s as representatives, not His causal agents. We are the new priesthood; we represent him and our high priest Jesus, albeit imperfectly, and representatives always serve a master, and their master’s will.

Yes, I know God does not have hands: God is spirit according to John 4:24, and elsewhere. But what else does John 4 say?

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps they had the best intentions, but God wants spirit and truth. Where there is a lack of truth there will not be revival, but reformation, even if through judgment. Once reformation’s done, revival may not be far behind.

The following is one of Shema’s entries for the top ten list of most misinterpreted Bible verses/passages. I think it’s a good one. Note: the list is a work in progress: no decisions have been made, nor any votes cast.

Interpretational error category: context

Here’s how things go awry. First, take a loook at this well loved, and oft-quoted verse extracted from its context: Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. Rev 3:20

Pretty straightforward, right? This is an evangelist’s staple whereby Christ is knocking at the world’s door and inviting everyone and anyone to eat with him, correct?  What else could anyone mean?

Before proceeding, I’d like to offer a clarification, if you don’t mind. I believe that without qualification the statement If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me is unreservedly true. Whosoever believes in Christ, whosoever hears his voice and opens the door, will eat with Christ and be saved.

However, that’s a truth gathered from other portions of Scripture, not this one. Take a second look at the verse, this time surrounded by its immediate context:

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” Rev 3:14-22

Our contextual cues here seem fairly apparent. This passage is addressed to the angel of the church of Laodicea. The Greek word translated angel is ἀγγέλῳ, which means messenger, and has been interpreted various ways, none of which are important to the question at hand. What is important, though, is the connection to chapter one of Revelation:

I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

“Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. Rev 1:12-20

It’s clear that the apostle John is addressing our passage to the messenger of the church of Laodicea, who is clearly in the hand of Christ according to the text, not flung out to the nether regions of the earth, or positionally outside of the kingdom. The remaining contextual cues from chapter one leave no doubt that the book of Revelation in its entirety is written to the seven churches, those that existed historically at that time:

On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”  Rev 1:10-11

John,
      To the seven churches in the province of Asia:  Rev 1:4

This much should be reasonably non-controversial. Nevertheless, notice what follows Rev 1:4:

Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. Rev1:4b-6

Now, when you write a letter, don’t you customarily begin with Dear Mrs. Smith or To whom it may concern? More than likely, I’d guess. The intent is to let the reader know first and foremost for whom the letter is intended. Thankfully, the biblical writers practiced the same protocol when writing. Check out the greetings and salutations of the New Testament epistles; they’re a key to proper biblical interpretation. Revelation is no different in this regard in that Revelation is written to the seven churches and to those in them that Christ loves, who have been freed from sins by his blood, and made to be a kingdom and priests to serve God his Father.

With that in mind, let’s look back at chapter three. Christ says to the church at Laodicea through its messenger “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.” Who is it that Christ loves, rebukes, and disciplines? Those who have been freed from sins by his blood, and made to be a kingdom and priests to serve God his Father, no doubt.  It’s the Christians in Laodicea who he describes in the following manner:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

Notice the contrast: I am about to spit you out of my mouth yet Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. Certainly, those who are in Christ’s mouth, metaphorically, are those he holds; those he has saved and loves. What a beautiful verse of the preserving promise and power of Christ through his Holy Spirit we have here. What great comfort we have in knowing that Christ stands at the door of our hearts knocking, because he loves us, and intends to rebuke and discipline us, we Christians, when we are lukewarm. What assurance there is in a faithful savior.

He is among the golden lampstands, after all, and he does hold the keys of death and Hades. And we also know that his Father is greater than all, and none can snatch out from his hand. He stands at the door of your heart, Christian, and knocks, always remembering that he now has the resurrected ability to pass through locked doors when necessary. There are other passages to offer to the world than this one; this promise is for you. It’s time to open up and overcome.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches…

There are interesting and exciting new things going on over at Marcher Lord Press. Here’s the latest press release:

Marcher Lord Press Announces Marcher Lord Select

(Colorado Springs, CO)–Marcher Lord Press, the premier publisher of Christian speculative fiction, today announces the debut of a revolution in fiction acquisitions.

“Marcher Lord Select is American Idol meets book acquisitions,” says publisher Jeff Gerke. “We’re presenting upwards of 40 completed manuscripts and letting ‘the people’ decide which one should be published.”

The contest will proceed in phases, Gerke explains, in each subsequent round of which the voters will receive larger glimpses of the competing manuscripts.

The first phase will consist of no more than the book’s title, genre, length, a 20-word premise, and a 100-word back cover copy teaser blurb. Voters will cut the entries from 40 to 20 based on these items alone.

“We want to show authors that getting published involves more than simply writing a great novel,” Gerke says. “There are marketing skills to be developed–and you’ve got to hook the reader with a good premise.”

Following rounds will provide voters with a 1-page synopsis, the first 500 words of the book, the first 30 pages of the book, and, in the final round, the first 60 pages of the book.

The manuscript receiving the most votes in the final round will be published by Marcher Lord Press in its Spring 2010 release list.

No portion of any contestant’s mss. will be posted online, as MLP works to preserve the non-publication status of all contestants and entries.

Participating entrants have been contacted personally by Marcher Lord Press and are included in Marcher Lord Select by invitation only.

“We’re also running a secondary contest,” Gerke says. “The ‘premise contest’ is for those authors who have completed a Christian speculative fiction manuscript that fits within MLP guidelines and who have submitted their proposals to me through the Marcher Lord Press acquisitions portal before October 29, 2009.”

The premise contest will allow voters to select the books that sound the best based on a 20-word premise, a 100-word back cover copy teaser blurb, and (possibly) the first 500 words of the book.

The premise contest entrants receiving the top three vote totals will receive priority acquisitions reading by MLP publisher Jeff Gerke.

“It’s a way for virtually everyone to play, even those folks who didn’t receive an invitation to compete in the primary Marcher Lord Select contest.”

Marcher Lord Select officially begins on November 1, 2009, and runs until completion in January or February 2010. All voting and discussions and Marcher Lord Select activities will take place at The Anomaly forums in the Marcher Lord Select subforum. Free registration is required.

“In order for this to work as we’re envisioning,” Gerke says, “we need lots and lots of voters. So even if you’re not a fan of Christian science fiction or fantasy, I’m sure you love letting your voice be heard about what constitutes good Christian fiction. So come on out and join the fun!”

Marcher Lord Press is a Colorado Springs-based independent publisher producing Christian speculative fiction exclusively. MLP was launched in fall of 2008 and is privately owned. Contact: Jeff Gerke; www.marcherlordpress.com.

Those born into the digital age may wish to learn about kaleidoscopes before proceeding…

There’s something about the image of a kaleidoscope that intrigues me. It’s not what I see in the kaleidoscope; it’s the kaleidoscope-ness that captivates me. It has ever since I heard of the girl with kaleidoscope eyes.

I believe I utilized kaleidoscope imagery in The Dark Man. It was extremely brief, maybe just a quick reference or word picture, but I could not resist the pull of the image, if only for a moment. Look for it, keep an eye out for it, and if you haven’t read The Dark Man, go to Amazon and order it. You’ll be happy you did…oh yeah, my publisher will admonish me if I neglect to mention that The Dark Man features attack gunship helicopters and loads of action in addition to its deep theological themes and kaleidoscope-like imagery.

The Kaleidoscope image fascinates me because of its total and continuous becoming, given that someone continues to turn it, of course. This shifting, this morphing, this you never step into the same river twice: it’s contingency at large and on the move. It has little or nothing to do with the colors involved. It’s the shape shifting, the image of a world with constant blending of substances and their properties into new substances and properties that give way to yet more S & P.

In case I’ve lost you, let me shout real loud: ATTACK GUNSHIP HELICOPTERS & ACTION. Okay, now that you’re interested again, let me approach my point. If you stare into a kaleidoscope long enough, you can forget that you’re actually turning the lens that changes the colors. When this occurs, there’s a point in time where, unconsciously, your mind has lost the sense that all is not becoming. Under the entrancement of the colors, your mind may forget that there’s someone–in this case yourself–turning the kaleidoscope.

We’ve all had similar experiences: the movie that was so good we forgot where we were, the sunset we got caught up in, the musical score that transported us to another place. Sometimes, and most of them are good times, we forget that we are conscious.

The kaleidoscope phenomenon is a forced, or enticed, event that mirrors our greater lives. I would argue that a substantial portion of our waking life is spent in this conscious yet unconscious state. We are caught up in the hue and cry of life, or the doldrums of life, and forget that we are actually thinking, conscious beings. In effect, we forget to think that we are thinking.

Have you ever asked yourself why something exists rather than nothing? Try it again if you have, or for the first time if you have not. Very quickly, you’ll notice that all of a sudden you are thinking of your own existence, as well as the existence of everything else. It’s a staggering thought with miles of untrod, virgin ground; yet I ask you to think of it now as a reminder of just how often you don’t think of it. Mostly, we spend our lives lapsed in a state of unconscious, assumed existence, as if we were entranced by a kaleidoscope.

Through the kaleidoscope of the natural world, we observe constantly changing frames and colors: the sunsets, the stars, the full moons, the forests, the events of our lives, the pain of injury, and the love of friends. And, no doubt, all these things we see are in a state of becoming. The flowers fade, the grass withers, we grow old, and those yet to come are born. But how often do we forget that the colors of the kaleidoscope are not all there is?

Most importantly, when we are entranced, we forget that someone is turning the kaleidoscope. Our lives can lull us into the false perception that all is becoming–that there is no being–that this world of becoming is all there is. In this, we are but dark men traversing a dark world, oblivious to the light that shines through the pane of the kaleidoscope. The world around us is indeed turning, but it does not turn of its own accord or power. There is indeed someone with His hands on the kaleidoscope of the world. He is the one that is not becoming, but Being.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

The raven has entered the Areopagus. He came a rapping on my chamber door yesterday, and has perched upon a bust of Elvis atop my bookcase.

One of my very best friends died yesterday. Not an acquaintance, not a friend loitering in the narthex of my life, not even one in my inner circle, but one of my most trusted, beloved, and truest friends and confidants; a core friend, you might say. I received the news late upon arriving home. It was unexpected, yet expected. I had visited her at the hospital a couple of times this past year. We were hoping that her condition would improve–and it seemed it just might–but the bad news came just the same yesterday.

How do you avoid cliches at times such as these? I trust Christine Clements as much as I trust my own kin. She’s the most loyal person I have ever met in my life, unfailingly caring, and intrepid in her defense of those she loved. I count myself lucky to have been one of those folk. We hired her at Marc Schooley Motor Company off the street as a complete stranger, just in town from out of state. Though she had difficulty turning a computer on, she soon proved to be a woman of great resourcefulness. BTW-if ever at a loss for words in a job interview, invoke the Chris system: tell your potential hiring manager he’s got balls of steel. It might just work for you It did for Chris.

Though she may have seemed a flight risk, within just a short period of time we were trusting her with staggering amounts of bank deposits…she was just that trustworthy. It seems silly, but you could just tell she was right. There never was any question about it, and she always came through.

Now, she had this uncanny ability to say and do whatever she felt like, and get away with it. In fact, in my forty years of knowing the Schooner, no one had ever gotten away with nicknaming him with reference to his size. Yet I can still hear Chris’s voice–yes, it could be rather loud–blaring out “where’s the big ‘un?” In fact, she called him big ‘un in front of 500 people once at church, and somehow it was fitting and appropriate. Fittingly, when the schooner passed away two years ago, there was an odd flower arrangement–the best I can remember it was the biggest as well–which simply said: Elvis has left the building. That was Chris.

I could bore you to tears with unending Chris stories–like the time she showed up at the lot decked out in her best red dress and we didn’t remember it was her birthday until 3 PM. We snuck out the back when she wasn’t looking, went to the store and got gifts, and returned and surprised her on her birthday (bet you didn’t know that one, Chris)–or how she used to leave the intercom on between offices and trick all the wholesalers and other car dealers into talking bad about us over the airwaves–or how she used to beat the Schooner at trivial pursuit–but I won’t. I can’t do the stories the justice they deserve.

What I will tell you, then, is what she was like. I realize people get this way when they’ve lost a friend; however, in this case they’re actually true:

When Chris decided on something, there was no stopping it. When Chris decided she liked you, it was a good thing, but if she decided she loved you, her life was given over in loyalty. She was tougher than any man I’ve ever met in her own way. She could bear multiple, incredible real-life burdens like no one I’ve ever met. She sacrificed herself for those she loved. Incredible, really, and extremely rare.

And what a presence. If you go to New Orleans and turn south, and continue on until you run into the Gulf of Mexico, somewhere in that general vicinity is where Chris came from. She was swamp mutha through and through, and literally could take over a room.

Now, Chris wasn’t perfect. She dragged a past with her to Texas, and owned up to every bit of it. In many ways, she was proud of it. And here is where this tale begins, really. Marc Schooley Motor Company was a bit of a missionary outlet, believe it or not (yes, I can hear the jokes). Chris made no bones, obviously, if you’ve read this far, about her feelings toward the church. But a truly amazing thing happened along the way…

I’m sometimes asked why I’m a Calvinist. It’s the biblical data that does it for me, but added to that are real-world observances. Thing is, I’ve seen too many miracles not to be. Chris came to a vibrant faith in the Lord years before her passing yesterday. Dare I say it–like you can stop me at this moment, Christine –she became a church lady. Grace is nothing short of a miracle. I saw it in the Schooner’s life, I saw it in Shema’s life, I saw it clearest of all in my own life, and, I saw it in Chris’s life. None of the four of us would have ever come to faith in Christ without a miracle–one that is entirely alien to ourselves. Forget the twenty-foot high stacks of crutches; salvation is a bona fide miracle. And it happened to Chris.

So, now, I’m having a little trouble grieving, because all I can think about is the look on the Schooner’s face in heaven when he hears Chris’ voice behind him in that loud tone of hers: I’m here Big ‘un!

So, yes, the raven came a rapping and sat upon the bust of Elvis upon my bookcase. But, the thing is, the bird can’t say nevermore. I mean, it tried, I suppose, but it really has nothing to say to me. You see: THERE IS BALM IN GILEAD, AND I KNOW IT. My friend is with my father in heaven, perhaps beating him at trivial pursuit, but more likely up to something much, much better.

In fact, now that I look more closely, it’s not a raven at all perched upon the bust of Elvis above my bookcase. It might just be a dove, and it just seems like it’s singing a new tune:

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Love you guys…

I did the best I could, Chris…hope it’s good enough.

An inveterate list-maker Quixote is. He’s proposed a new list: the top-ten list of most frequently misinterpreted Bible verses. This is a work-in-progress, and all are encouraged to submit their candidates; supporting rationale and justification is optional, but correct identification of the interpretational or hermeneutic error involved in the misinterpretation garners extra logic and style points for your entry(s). As a point of order, it might be acceptable to propose a Scriptural passage in lieu of a singe verse, if several commonly misinterpreted verses are linked together in a manner whereby they cannot be segregated, or if the misinterpretation requires several verses. Combining isolated verses to convey a systematic misinterpretation, however, is unacceptable for the purposes of this list.

Quixote’s first entry, and this in no way suggests this entry should or will be ranked number one, or even make the list, I suppose, is one of the most commonly cited verses in the New Testament: 2 Peter 3:9…

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. KJV

Interpretational error category: context

Beware of citing biblical verses out of context. A verse on its lonesome may be equivocated faster than you can say good. OK, well, the logicians are laughing, anyway…The primary reason this verse is cited with such frequency is its seeming disagreement with unconditional election, the Reformed doctrine that God has elected some but not all to salvation based solely on the purpose and pleasure of His good will. Nonetheless, what does this verse teach?

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise. What promise? Without context, we may simply engorge the word promise with any meaning we so desire.  Fortunately, Peter did not leave us to wonder or surmise. In fact, he defines precisely what he means by promise in the opening verses of his epistle:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.  2 Pet 1:3-4

But who are the we and us in the above verses that God has promised? Again, Peter does not leave us to question the identity of those God has promised: Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Pet 1:1. Thus, it is those who have received a precious faith through the righteousness of Jesus Christ who have received the promise of God. Indeed, 2 Pet 1:1 makes it exceedingly clear that 2 Peter was written to Christians–those with faith–and not the world. This becomes redundantly obvious as we track through the epistle:

⁸For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Pet 1:8

¹⁰Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, ¹¹and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. ¹²So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 2 Pet 1:10-12

¹⁶We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Pet 1:16

¹⁹And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. ²⁰Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 2 Pet 1:19-20

¹But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. 2 Pet 2:1

³In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. 2 Pet 2:3

¹Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you [Note: the first epistle of Peter was addressed to God's elect]. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. ²I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. ³First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 2 Pet 3:1-3

As if this were not clear enough, note the contrast between the saved and lost in 2 Peter. I apologize for length, but it fully captures the contrast, and, after all, it is the Bible, which we’re supposed to enjoy:

¹But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. ²Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. ³In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

⁴For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; ⁵if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; ⁶if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; ⁷and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men ⁸(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— ⁹if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. ¹⁰This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.

Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; ¹¹yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. ¹²But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

 ¹³They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. ¹⁴With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! ¹⁵They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. ¹⁶But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man’s voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.

¹⁷These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. ¹⁸For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. ¹⁹They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. ²⁰If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. ²¹It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. ²²Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” 2 Pet 2

³First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. ⁴They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” ⁵But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. ⁶By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. ⁷By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 2 Pet 3: 3-7

Could there be a clearer dichotomy between the saved and lost in this epistle? Now, Peter proceeds directly to 2 Pet 3:8-9:

⁸But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ⁹The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If you’ve made it this far, here’s the question: who does Peter refer to as beloved and us-ward in these two verses? In the context of the epistle, it’s a rhetorical question. He’s referring to the saved, to those who have the great and precious promises of God. Next question, equally rhetorical in context: who are the any and all in verse 9? It’s certainly not the ungodly men of verse seven for whom the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire and judgment. It can only be Peter’s audience; those to whom he addressed both of his epistles: the elect of God, those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours. Any other reading is fatal to the understanding of not only this verse, but the entire epistle.

What is God saying to His elect, then? Ironically, 2 Pet 3:9, understood properly, is one of the strongest passages in the Bible arguing for perseverance of the saints. God is not willing that any [of you] should perish, but that all [of you] should come to repentance. Please don’t think I’m adding words to the biblical text. Something has to be incorporated to complete the thought, and, in context, it must be Peter’s audience. What else would we put? Any what? All what? God is not willing that any [ungodly men] should perish, but that all [dogs that return to their vomit] should come to repentance?  The context and contrast preclude this interpretation. Be sure to grasp the contrast…here it is again: ⁹if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.

Hence, what a wonderful and reassuring verse for those who love, and are loved by, God. There’s one last detail that sweetens the verse immeasurably. Those who misinterpret this verse are forced to conclude that the willing mentioned in verse nine must be God’s permissive or preceptive will. These wills of God, as in the ten commandments, may be disobeyed. Thus, 2 Pet 3:9, in this sense, describes a God who desires everyone to be saved, but does not ensure that anyone will be saved, perhaps, to some, even at times losing those He attempts to save. But given our preferred interpretation, it’s actually God’s decretive will Peter describes in 2 Pet 3:9–as in let there be light.

Read the verse once more, Christian, knowing that it is you God has in mind, and that He wills your salvation as certainly as He decreed let there be light:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Amen.