William P. Charters 3,May 1922 - 1 June 2011

My dad's funeral is to be held today, at 3:00 p.m. at Emmanuel Church, Lurgan. The following history will be included in the last two pages of the order of service:

Bill Charters was born on 3, May 1922 to Robert Danford Charters and Edith Armstrong. He was the third of four children, the others being Pearly, Bobby and Edie. They grew up in East Belfast. It was the time of the great worldwide Depression. Their family certainly wasn't well off, their father died early of TB, but their mother supported the family by sewing setee covers. She took the children as often as she could to Cregagh Hall to attend their evangelistic meetings. That left a lasting impression on young Bill.

Later, after surviving the German bombing of Coventry, Bill joined the RAF, where he was a member of ground crew, maintaining radios for bombing missions. Some of his friends became pilots -- some never returned from their missions. Once, he found himself alone in the control tower when a whole squadron of American bombers was requesting permission to land. He had no option but to guide them all in, which he did successfully, even though he hadn't been trained for it. Early, during his time in the RAF, he was invited to hear an evangelist, where he made the decision to follow Jesus.

When the War was over, Bill was kept on while his friends were decommission. However, he realised that this was in answer to prayer, because he was to be sent to India. He had prayed for a chance to engage in missionary work. While in India, he, along with a few other soldiers, worked with a local missionary during their off time, making treks to various villages. Bill came away from there with the desire to be a missionary to Tibet.

Once decommissioned, Bill attended Emmanuel Bible School in Northern England. After some time back in Belfast, where he renewed his relationship with Cregagh Hall, and became acquainted with the WEC prayer network, Bill joined WEC with the intention of going to Tibet. However, Tibet suddenly got taken over by China, and was no longer an option. Someone suggested Thailand, so he went there instead.

In Thailand, Bill joined the WEC team, that then consisted of six, including Rosemary, and her mother, Hazel Hanna. Love blossomed, and after a few short months, Bill Proposed to Rosemary.

The two worked as team, making treks to distant villages via foot-path and river, passing out leaflets -- many of their adventures are documented in Rosemary's book, Cracked Earth (available on-line at www.scribd.com/doc/32454882/Cracked-Earth and in No Turning Back, by Nancy Ashcraft (www.scribd.com/doc/56941684/No-Turning-Back ).

Their son, Robby Charters, was born four years into their marriage.

Dissatisfied with the quality of the literature they were passing out, Bill launched into a career of writing, producing testimony leaflets. Bill and Rosemary began producing a regular journal patterned after two similar regional WEC publications, called Soon. Later, they added to this a journal targeted to churches to encourage them to look outward, pattered after Leslie Brierly's Look to the Fields. In addition, Bill and Rosemary translated several books into the Thai language. These ministries continued until the passing of Rosemary, who succumbed to Cancer on the Thai field in 1990.

Not long after that, Bill was invited to teach at a small Bible School in Pak Chong, in North East Thailand, Christ For Thailand Institute. He kept that up until his retirement, however, slowly phasing that out, spending half of each year (the cooler half!) in Thailand, and the warmer half in Lurgan, where he had settled.

Bill's last trip to Thailand was in 2008, when he sent one more time by Emmanuel Church. There he helped a friend, Jim Arnold by translating Bible training material for a small Bible School in Chiengmai, Northern Thailand.

In 2010, Bill's health began to deteriorate. It began with a heart attack in May, and later, developed a fast spreading form of cancer in the thyroidal. By the time it was detected, it had already lodged itself in the lungs. He went to be with the Lord on 1, June, 2012.

Fundamentalists vs anti-Fundamentalists

Scott McKnight, at Jesus Creed, is changing his blogging platform. Right now, he has posts up at both his old site and his new one (different posts). I'm not sure how it happened, but one of the posts, prominently visible, as though it was posted in the last few days, is this one, dated 17 Dec., 2008. Maybe the dating thing on the blogging environment isn't working properly, or what? Anyway it's a good blog post about fundamentalists, and how people who have switched to newer ideas can be just as opinionated and hard shelled about their new position as they were about their fundamentalist ideas. Anyway, go there for a good read, and while you're there, take not of their new URL.

The Gospel of the Kingdom -- Jesus Creed

Scot McKnight has been talking about the Gospel of the Kingdom as presented in Luke's two books. (his Gospel, and Acts of the Apostles). He pinpoints many things that could correct our perception of the gospel message.

Forinstance, Campus Crusade's 4 Spiritual Laws and other similar bullet-point presentations, are not theologically wrong, just not the whole story. We're not giving the broader picture, only what applies to me, and, "how can I get to heaven?"

You'll find the following reconstruction on his most recent installment. You'll recognise the Campus Crusade version, but I believe this says it all:

God loves you and everyone else and has a plan for us: the kingdom community.

But you and everyone else have a sin problem that separates you and everyone else from God, from yourselves, from one another, and from the good world God made for you.

The good news is that Jesus lived for you, died for you, was raised for you, and sent the Spirit for you - so you all can live as the beloved community.

If you enter into Jesus' story, by repentance and faith, you can be reconnected to God, to yourself, to others, and to this world.

Those who are reconnected like this will live now as God's community and will find themselves eternally in union with God and communion with others.

Those who preach this gospel will not deconstruct the church. Instead, they will participate in what God is doing: constructing the kingdom community even now.

To get access to all the posts he done on this subject, use the Kingdom tag.

Two Problems

I found this via Next Reformation. It's a pair of questions that seems to go the heart of what's wrong with Christianity today:

1. Present day Christians are not very good at accepting outsiders (sinners who do not follow Jesus).

2. Present day Christians are far too accepting of sinful behavior from insiders (Christians who have been following Jesus long enough to know better).

Shouldn’t it be just the opposite?

Any thoughts about why this is so?

Some good thoughts expressed on both blogs.

Allegory

I've just finished doing some needed editing on my novella Allegory, and its companion article, A Study on Judgement. I intend to keep links to these prominently posted on any future author's page as free downloads. Even if they get published in the future in paper format, I plan to retain the right to allow free downloading of the electronic version. The subject matter is such that I don't think I can, of good conscience, make everyone pay before they receive such an important message.

It's "Love Your Local Atheist" week

On both Scott McKnight's blogsite and Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert, who doesn't believe in a creator -- ha ha, pun intended)', there have been some interesting discussions on atheism. I've put in a comment on both. I'll list them below, but first, here's an interesting one I found on Scott Adams' blog.

Wow - painful posts. I'll try to be brief.

It isn't irrational to look at evidence and make a decision based on what you can observe and trying to think clearly about that.

You have to understand that an orthodox Christian point of view believes that this is too small a way to look at the world as a whole.

Logic, math, philosophy, scientific method, etc... are all things made up by some guy (or a groups of guys over time). That shouldn't diminish them in any way, they are smart and useful and good.

But if you really take the assumption of religious faith seriously for just a second, of course God is bigger than those things - how could a small man-made thing ever adequately define or explain Him?

That would be like taking a square inch of a Van Gogh and saying that there wasn't any evidence for good painting.

With a narrowly defined course of inquiry, of course you'll reach that conclusion. And it would be a rational one.

The bigger question is - is rationality the only measure? Is rationality the best measure?

I mean, if no religious person believes that the scientific method is the way to find God - then why are you confused that they don't buy your logical and scientifically correct arguments? You've lost before you've started. And vice versa.

You have to have an atheist that isn't threatened by considering things outside of the provable, and a believer who isn't threatened by someone who will tend to demand proof :)

It is such a non-starter to not accept the premise of the opposing camp and then start beating on each other.

It seems to me that the only way to have a conversation that isn't the nauseous restating of your already owned notion... is to agree on a premise that you can both live with. Then go from there.

Posted by: E | January 29, 2007 at 07:55 AM

Now, here are the comments I made, first the one I posted on Scott McKnight's blog, which was a disscussion of Dawkin's recent book. The question being posed was this: So - is Dawkins right, is Christianity hopelessly irrational? If not what is the correct approach to development of a rational, unified, and Christian worldview?:

If faith is what we believe simply because we’ve been taught it, then there is a point to Dawkin’s thesis.

For me, there’s more, but I don’t expect someone like Dawkin’s to readily accept it. I would point to Hebrews 11:1, using the litteral Greek terminology of “evidence” as being a legal term, and “substance” as being a scientific term. It’s something that is tangible, and those whose hearts have been been enlightened can see it, and it produces results when the the various factors are right (i.e. “with signs following” Mark 16…), but it’s found in a realm of reality that as yet seems to be out of reach of present day science.

I don’t doubt that if scientific research could be done using instruments that don’t just expand the five senses, but also the sixth sense, or else if quantum theory were expanded to something beyond a theory by enabling us to actually see sub-atomic activity etc. with absolute clarity, then faith would be fully contained within the realm of science. Humanity may never develope that level of skill. What we’re left with is something like a very subjective sixth sense, with a few pointers to be found in places such as scripture — a bit like “seeing through a glass darkly”.

An explanation like that is not enough to convince someone like Dawkins, but it’s enough to assure the likes of myself that what I’m following isn’t something hopelessly irrational.

...and here's the one I posted on the Scott Adams discussion:

I am of the opinion that the reason many theists won't allow atheists the benifit of the doubt that they are honestly atheists, is that some of us theists are still squirming and trying to convince ourselves that our theistic possition is the right one. The more evidence that the atheist's possition is untenable, the more secure we feel. Maybe we have too much to lose if we're proven wrong.

Real faith isn't just going along with something we've been taught all our lives, but, according to Hebrews 11:1, it's the "substance of things hoped for, and the evedince of the unseen." Once I decided I didn't have anything to lose anyway (and probably everything to gain if anyone did convince me of the "truth" of atheism), and rested on that, things became a lot easier.

What I've experienced is enough to convince me, but it may too subjective for someone like you. We might be looking with a different set of lenses, but we're also dealing with person. Proving the existance of a person (as opposed to a substance or a force) can be pretty tricky, especially when that person has a tendency to make himself scarse at times, responding only to those wearing the right set of lenses.

I believe that the way to engage an atheist in a discussion, as with anyone, be it a Moslem, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Nazi, etc., is with respect. That means, don't go in with the assumption that you know more what's going on in the atheist's mind then he/she does. Give him/her the benifit of a doubt that he/she actually is a genuine atheist. If you read just a few of the comments on Scott Adam's blog, you'll see that there are many types of atheists. For some, there's a fine line between atheism and agnosticism. Each has their own reason for calling him/herself an atheist. Also, don't go in claiming that atheism is a belief system that requires faith. Also, understand that the debate is probably not going to win anyone. Your love and respect will win more souls than your knowledge of science, etc.

For the same reason, I also believe one must never argue with a Moslem by referring to the Quran (unless you, yourself were once a Moslem), nor with a rabbi by using the Talmud or the Kaballa (unless you, yourself are Jewish). It's just not nice to try to show off the notion that you know more about the other's area of expertise than they do. It won't win them, rather drive them away.

On the other hand, if an atheist, a rabbi or a Moslem, or any other non-Christian comes at you using the Christian Bible, be gracious and answer him/her as best you can. It's a double standard, I know, but it's their soul we're interested in, not the fairness of the argument.

that's the way to do a funeral [link]

I got this off Len's Next Reformation blog, although he got it off Scott Williams' blog It's about a funeral in a Black Baptist church, where the pastor knows how to make the truth come alive.

A "must read"...

Homosexuality

In many Christian circles, it seems, the only way to deal with homosexuality is with a sledgehammer. The only other alternative, it seems, is to say it's okay.

Scott McKnight (again!) has been treatin the subject in his blog in what I find to be a well ballanced way. Below, I've listed the entries he has so far, in case you want to catch up:

Making Moral Decisions: Homosexuality
Homosexuality: Context 1 and 2
Homosexuality: Context 3 and 4
Context: Defining homosexuality 1
Context: Defining homosexuality 2
Jesus and Homosexuality 1
Jesus and Homosexuality 2
Jesus and Homosexuality 3

Scott McKnight on the Gospel -- update

Further to my last post, Scott McKnight's blog entries on What is the Gospel, have been combined into an article in Next Wave e-zine.

Scott McKnight on the Gospel

Scott McKnight has an excellent series of blogs on exactly what is the Gospel. The link above is to a page that includes the whole series, including a few more that fit into the cattigory. Start reading from the bottom of the page (in normal blog fashion).

lost tribes...?

I realise that when one drops the phrase, "lost tribes", it conjours up any one of a number of images, such as British Israelism, or it's more recent variation that seems to have hit some Messianic groups, the "Two Houses" idea. That is the belief that every European believer in Yeshua is potentially descended from Israelites who became thoroughly assimilated into European society.

I won't comment further on that theory, except to say that unless someone shows me some geneological records I was hitherto unaware of (which would delight me no end) I will remain what God made me: Irish. Also, the theories assume that the Northern tribes were not only lost (which some question), but also thoroughly assimilated into their adoptive cultures.

There is, however, evidence that they were neither lost nor assimilated... or maybe lost as far as Western popular history, but as the little boy found wandering about the shopping mall said, "I'm not lost, my parents are." (In the same way, we could say Columbus didn't discover America. The Native Americans knew about it all along.)

What follows is not a Christian/Messianic fad. It's something that many Orthodox rabbis in Israel are taking seriously (although opinion is a bit devided). All of my sources come from rabbinical sources, such as Moshiach Online, and the book: Across the Sabbath River: In Search of a Lost Tribe of Israel .
You can also do a Google advance search, entering the string "Lost Tribes" and either "Bnai Menashe" or "Pathan" to find much much more.

The Moshiach Online website has information on about a dozon groups, including the Pathan, who make up a major part of the population of Afghanistan, Kashmeris, and a group called Bnai Menashe, a group of people from the Mizo/Chin tribe of India and Burma.

If you look up these links and take it all in, there's actually very little that I could add to them, except to say that this probably represents a wide open opportunity for Messianics who are considering following the will of Adonai, to consider if it may mean relocating to a different part of the world, such as, say, Afghanistan, India or S.E. Asia.

This has been a very exciting discovery for me, as I happen to know a number of people of the Chin/Mizo tribe in Burma. They were evangelised some 100 years ago, and the tribe is about 95% Christian, at least nominally, but a great percent are Evangelical, with many Pentecostals and Charismatics. A relatively small group of them, numbering several thousand living on the Indian side of the border (where they are caled "Mizos") have concluded that they are, in fact, of the tribe of Menashe. What is surprising is there are rabbis who, after examining their culture and what they remember of their history, believe them.

As for the rest of the tribe, on both sides of the border, they are still 95% Christian. Unfortunately, those who originally took the Gospel to them, besides having no idea that these could be the tribe of Menashe (and would have probably resisted acknowledging the idea anyway), put very little emphesis on Old Testament foundational knowledge. It's easy to see how many of them, having only a minimal New Testament foundation to begin with, having become nominal after a few generations, could be influenced by something with more depth such as Rabbinical Judaism. They have, in effect, exchanged a religion that lost its foundation, for the foundation itself, but without the building that it was intended for.

I believe this represents a ministry opportunity for the Messianic movement -- if not to the Bnai Menashe who have already adopted Judaism, at least to the rest, who need their understanding of their faith deepened, both so as to know how to respond to the Bnai Menashe movement, but more importantly, to know how to respond to their calling as Israelites, if that is indeed what they are. If not, at least they could use a better foundation for their faith.

The Pathan and Kashmeris are followers of Islam, but still hold Israeli traditions that are even more obvious than those of the Bnai Menashe. There are both customs and place names that are readily recognisable from the Bible, but not inherited from Islam. Even British colonists and others in history have noted the fact. In light of that, it amazes me no end, how the idea still clung on, that the 10 Northern tribes are lost and, of all things, British! The Moshiach Online website also gives other examples of cultures far and wide that could have Israelite connections.

The challange of course is obvious, but I do believe that Messianic Judaism, mixed with a bit of cross cultural adaptation and wisdom, is in the best possition to take it up. Our mandate may be bigger than we had thought. It's still about sharing Ha Mochiach with the Jewish community, and helping the Christian community find their Jewish roots, but now it's not just on a local level. Each one should pray about what it means for him/herself.

If you begin to have the feeling that there's not much more that can be said and done in your own community that the locals (both Jewish and Christian) haven't seen and heard already, maybe it's time to move on. If we truly believe we have a mandate, and that we are approaching the end times when Israel will be gathered to her home, it's something we need to take seriously.

It's not an easy decision in every case, just as it wasn't for Avraham when G-d told him to leave his country. It also doesn't pay to be rash, but for sure, take it seriously and seek G-d about it, and talk about it with the believers in your fellowship.

Then, prepare.

When the Dust of the Orange Day parades has Settled...

Yesturday was 12th of July. For many here in N. Ireland, that's every bit as auspicious as the 4th of July in America. In fact, even more so, because some were even throwing rocks and firebombs in some parts of Belfast and Londonderry (instead of firecrakers and skyrockets like they do in America). It's the dayKing Billy chased the Catholics across the River Boyne, about 300 years ago, thereby liberating the N.Ireland Protestants from Catholic rule (but not the N.Ireland Catholics from Protestant rule, which is why some of them were throwing the rocks and firebombs).

Anyway, here is an article I sent to Next Wave.org, which also got reprinted on The Ooze, but I never got around to posting on my own website. It is entitled, The Problem with Western Christianity, and it explores how, not only in N. Ireland, but in North America as well, the church, from some angles, looks more like a dying political party than an cutting edge force.

Anyway, here it is... enj0y!

The Problem with Western Christianity

Letter to a Moslem

The following is an answer to an anonymous Moslem who wrote in to the discussion board of Next-Wave. His message was too long to reproduce here, was evangelistic (on behalf of Islam), and was signed, "Your Brother in Humanity". The following with a few edited changes, was a response. I decided to also post this here as an open letter to all Moslems. Footnotes are at the bottom.

MY DEAR BROTHER IN HUMANITY...

I think the only appropriate way for me to begin this is with an apology:
I don't know your background, whether you are from the Middle East, from the Far East, from Central Asia, North Africa or a European who has embraced Islam. You no doubt feel, as I would acknowledge, that your identification with the faith of Islam makes you a son of Ishmail, just as my embracing of faith in Isa* [there are footnotes below], the Word of Allah**, makes me spiritually a son of Isaac.
For myself, I am only a spiritual son, not a natural offspring of Isaac (having come by faith in Isa, not a convert to Judaism). I therefore feel a debt of honour to the physical sons of Isaac and Ishmail. The book of Geneses records blessings for both Ishmail and Isaac. For the gentile nations, to which I belong, no blessing is given at all -- only an opportunity to receive a blessing through the sons of Abraham, as it says, "In you, all the nations of the earth will be blessed", and "I will bless those who bless you, and and curse those who curse you."
I'm afraid that we gentile believers in Isa deserve a curse both for our past and for our present sins against you, the children of Abraham. The Crusades are definitely a blotch on our history. In those dark times, we destroyed whole communities and slaughtered, without mercy, many more Moslems than can even be measured by the recent terrorist attacks. I realise that most Moslems are equally appalled by what happened to the WTC and other attacks, and do not consider terrorism as a good thing, but if that were to be used as a measuring stick, we Christians have still done far more wrong to the Muslim community than the Muslim have, to us.
That is only one example of our past atrocities against the children of Abraham. As for the present: We loudly sing "G-d Save the Queen" at our football matches, and then proceed to bash up anyone supporting the opposite team. We put "In G-d we Trust" on our currency, and with it we finance pornographic and blasphemous films and literature with which we corrupt the rest of the world, including much of the Muslim world.
Although these examples only cover the tip of the iceberg, and my knowledge of history fails me for more, please accept my humble apologies on behalf of the Christian community for our sins. I'm sure other members of this discussion board will also affirm this confession and apology.
Having said that, I must now allude to a point on which your religion doesn't agree -- in which Islam states that no mediator is necessary in order to gain access to Allah. Because of our sins against the rest of humanity, and against the Muslim world in particular, I find I have no choice but to acknowledge our absolute dependence on the intermediary role of Isa, the Word of Allah, in obtaining forgiveness for our sins. In light of what we have done, how we've miss-used the grace of Allah in the past, the only way I feel I can proceed is to humbly acknowledge that it is only because of His mercy that I deserve to be alive, let alone be talking to you. With that in mind please allow me to speak my heart:
HOW WE GOT THIS WAY:
Looking at us now, it's hard to believe that we were, once-upon-a-time, a simple down-to-earth Middle Eastern religion, similar to Islam. In fact, we were not a religion at all, in our own right, but only one of many sects within Judaism. Messiah Isa had revealed Allah to us in a more profound way than we had known Him before, and then, had opened up the way for us to come yet closer to Him -- closer than was possible through simple Torah observance (though we believe that Isa fulfilled the Torah in that regard, so that the final veil between Allah and man was lifted in a way stimulated by the Torah. Thus true Torah observance is the acknowledging of Messiah).
So, we began with a knowledge of Allah as revealed through Isa, Allah's Word.
I think we can be open and honest here. In describing Isa as Allah's Word, of course, I'm simply using a "Islamically Correct" phrase in place of the usual Christian usage, "Son of G-d". Islam states that Allah has no offspring, and no one can be referred to as a son of Allah. Whatever the assumption was, we don't necessarily think of Isa's "Sonship" as being the result of his birth to a human mother. Rather, we see it in the same sense as His being the "Word", spoken by Allah, emanated from Allah in much the same way that the rays of the sun are emanated from the sun itself. If it's only a matter of terminology, I have no trouble on my part in dropping the phrase "Son of G-d", for the sake of this discussion.
In using the analogy of the sun, I think we are on somewhat common ground. The sun, the closest star to earth, is so hot and so full of energy that a human could never even hope to approach it directly. Yet, the rays of the sun are the primary source of sustenance to all life on earth. You have no doubt noticed, in the West, our obsession with turning our skin dark so as to look more like Middle Easterners and North Africans :-) Driven by that, we flock to the beach on our days off, where we can enjoy pure sunlight, so we can come home with darker looking skin. Even though that's as close as we can get to it, we call it being "in the sun".
As the Word of Allah, Isa revealed Him to us in much the same way. In Jewish terminology, He would be the "Shechinah" of Allah, or the "dwelling" of Allah among us. The rabbis speak of the Shechinah of G-d being present among His congregation, or among the two who gather to study Torah, or three who sit to judge, etc. We believe Allah spoke His Word, which emanated to earth in same way as the rays of the sun, and became Shechinah, in the form of a person, Isa.
In those early days, we weren't so intent on defining things, but were content to simply bask in the Shechinah of Allah, in the same way as many today like to bask in the sun. We had come to know Allah as revealed in Isa, and that seemed enough for us, as it should be. As time went on, from being a simple Middle Eastern religion, we began to try to go "up market" by explaining it all to Greek and Roman minds. Oriental religion is of the heart, but Western religion emphasises the mind. We began to search for answers using our heads instead of our hearts, thereby becoming "Westernised". In trying to have it all figured out with our rational minds, and to protect ourselves from a barrage of rational ideas from just about every source imaginable, we came up with creeds. With it, we defined the "Trinity".
To be honest, I do not find any fault with the doctrine of the Trinity*** in and of itself. But I should clarify, the "Trinity" is not about three separate individuals who came together and decided to be "G-d". To me, the word "One" goes much further than the word "Three" in describing Him. It's just that, by offering a scientific sounding definition, people began to depend on what their minds could fathom instead of what their hearts told them. They began to apply it rationally, and began approaching G-d as though there were three gods, or a family of gods. It was very simple matter, then, to add Mary as a fourth member of the "family". That just about describes the state of things when the Prophet Muhammed began his career, so to me it's quite understandable that someone of his calibre would decide to throw out the whole thing and seek to find his revelation directly from Allah Himself. If the word "Son" were to be understood as being a part of a family of gods, then I fully understand the Prophet in his rejection of the idea of Allah having a son.
"One" is an apt description of G-d. If Isa is a part of the G-dhead, then he is inseparable from that oneness. Just as the rays of the sun can't suddenly decide to move to a different part of the universe, and have no more to do with the actual sun -- they would then cease to be rays, or anything for that matter -- so the Word of Allah could never be thought of in isolation of Allah Himself. At the same time, the sun, by its nature, must have rays, or it would become a black hole. Therefore, the sun and its rays are one. The Holy Spirit is the breath of Allah, and the Word is His Shechinah, or radiance. As for His being a person, I would say that Allah can be what He wants. The rabbis say that G-d creates angels, complete with personalities, simply by giving a command, and the angel formed by that command exists for as long as it takes to fulfil that command, and then returns and merges again with the substance of G-d****. Being One G-d isn't about His person-hood, whether one or many, but being One G-d.
The Torah says man is created in G-d's image. I think we could safely say man is a very simplified and abbreviated image of G-d. Man is at his healthiest when he is "one" with himself. Some people are diagnosed with multiple personalities, but such people cannot be described as being "one". Being abbreviated and simplified, that's all man was designed for. Man is limited, but G-d is infinite. Just as the sun is composed of pure energy and too hot and radiant for man to approach any closer than the circle of earth's orbit, so are G-d's ways far above our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts -- so much so that His thoughts could be animated with personalities if He chose. As many of such thoughts G-d would choose to have, they would all agree, as G-d is infinitely "one", far exceeding man's attempts at being "one".
I know you won't agree with most of what I'm saying, but at least I think it's a way of presenting our beliefs in a way that would be of least offence to your sensibilities, and show that Christianity honours Allah as a true expression of monotheism.
As far as I see it, that leaves only one other fundamental area of disagreement: the death of Isa on the cross, and His ressurection*****.
Unlike the issues I've discussed above, this is one that I cannot play down, skirt around, explain away or even apologise for. The "offence of the cross", according to Rabbi Sha'ul, is the offence that defines us. Before the Prophet arrived on the scene, it was already offensive. To the thinking Greeks it was offensive, to the organic Jewish mind it was offensive. Unfortunately, it also offends some of us!
The offence of the cross is the only offence we are allowed (indeed, required) to maintain, but our problem is, we've offended in just about every way BUT that. We've offended you in many ways, so that we now have no choice, before Allah, but to come to you in deep sorrow and repentance. But it is through the cross, our only legitimate offence, that we can, by humbly repenting, receive forgiveness and cleansing from all our other offences that are filthy blotches on our history.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS
I know that nothing I can say right now can make up for the evil that has been done in the name of Messiah. I can only speak for myself, but others of us continue to offend, with militant, nationalistic, racist attitudes towards the Moslem community, while continuing to flaunt sexual and moral permissiveness in a way that would make most in the Moslem world blush.
Yet, there is so much we could learn from you: your morality, your simple faith, your furverancy, your close family unions, honouring of one another (why, in Afghanistan, which we in the West consider the most "backward" of countries, the traditional family unit is still a remarkably solid foundation for society at large, and an example we should be studying for our own benefit). This is not to mention praying three times a day and fasting one month out of the year. Most of us Christians, if we pray once a day, or fast the whole weekend, we think we've achieved sainthood.
But my personal belief is, we are slowly learning that or own ways have got us nowhere. Our only strength is in the offence of the Cross of Isa, the Messiah. Once we learn to not be offended by that ourselves, but to fully rely on that for our strength, and our way forward -- as we thus learn the humility of Isa -- you will see a profound change in us.
In Isa, the Messiah,
baruch

----------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES:
* "Isa" is simply Arabic for "Yeshua", which is Hebrew for "Jesus". Jesus is believed by Moslems as a prophet, and as Messiah, and the Word of Allah.
** "Allah" is simply Arabic for G-d. Even Christian Bibles in Arabic and in Bahasa-Malayu and other Moslem languages use "Allah" as the generic term for the creator of the universe. The only fundamental difference in Moslem belief is their insistence that Allah cannot have children. I personally believe it is a mistake to insist that the Moslems worship a different god than the Christians.
*** Lest any of this is taken as questioning the doctrine of the Trinity, let me just clarify. What I'm saying is simply this: at that point in history, when we sat down and begin rationalising everything and laying down creeds, we lost our innocence.
At the time, it seemed like a necessary move, both to be able to explain it all to Greek and Roman minds, and to protect ourselves from a host of rationalists who tried to steer everything in a totally different direction (ie. Marcion, Arius of Alexandria, Nestorius and others). What SHOULD we have done? I don't know. I'm not even sure that had I lived then, I would have done any better. Never the less, we lost our innocence
Once we've lost our innocence, it's hard to gain it back again. That's why it would be a mistake, at this point in history, to try to backtrack and UN-docterinalise the trinity.
Instead of trying to UN-do 1800 or so years of ecclesiastical evolution, I'd suggest that the challenge for us now, is to try to see where our original innocence (that we lost) would have taken us, and try to steer a course towards that. That is, simply, a clearer revelation of G-d as revealed in Yeshua/Isa/Jesus.
**** That's not to say Isa is no more than one of many angels created by a command of G-d. As the Word of Allah, He is permanent in the same way as the rays that eternally emanate from the sun are permanently part of the sun.
***** Islam states that though the Jews attempted to crucify Isa, they didn't succeed, as Allah rescued Isa at the last minute, so He didn't die on the cross nor rise from the dead.

Christian Authors -- Go for the Bigger Market Share

Here are some questions I believe every Christian writer of fiction ought to be asking him/herself before launching into another book:

Say, you were a marketing engineer, and you have a product that will sell. You know you could either advertise it one way so as to appeal to a vast audience, or else another way to appeal to a very limited sector of society: Which would you aim to do?

In the fiction market worldwide, which has the biggest market share, Christian fiction or secular fiction?

So, as Christian writers, why is it that we begin with the assumption that we must write only to please such a limited audience as the Christian reader's market?

Please note carefully: The question I am asking is not, should we as Christian writers conform to the world so as to please the world. The answer to that is obviously, no. Neither was Jesus, our example, conformed to the world, but His ministry reached the publicans and sinners of His day, much to the chagrin of the religious community that thought He should have targeted the limited audience of the "already righteous".

In actual fact, to simply conform our writing, or any other art form to the worlds standards would be the easiest path to take. Many of us take that route anyway with or without knowing it. Others among us finally give up and "backslide" into that mode. It is more difficult, to be sure, to stay within the yellow lines and write only what would be acceptable to the Christian reading public, producing books that conservative parents of the kids in our youth groups would approve of.

But the third way, the most challenging, is to write stories that would compete with the likes of Harry Potter, Star Wars and James Bond. J.R.R.Tolkein took that route, and the recent success of his trilogy, Lord of the Rings as a film is proof that it can be done. C.S.Lewis, George McDonald, G.K.Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, John Bunyan and Charles Dickens are a few others who took that route.

The reason this way is the most challenging is because to compete, one must not only be able to think up a good plot and give it the right action, but one must also be so full of what one has received in his or her Christian experience that it simply flows out and shows up in the story even when one isn't particularly trying to write a Christian story.

In the same way that a truly transformed Christian doesn't have to go around saying he or she is a Christian -- people around about just know it, so, a writer like J.R.R.Tolkein or C.S.Lewis simply writes what's in his or her imagination and people can see Christ in it.

Without judging the average writer for Christian markets -- it's too easy to take a good plot, make sure it's child safe, fill it with Christian terminology and maybe even a gospel message, and there you have it -- a book for the Christian market. It's like the Christian who has to drop phrases like "praise the Lord", paste Christian bumper stickers on their car and visibly pause to say grace before each meal, because without doing that people wouldn't know he or she is a Christian.

Again, I'm not judging. Many writers for the Christian market do display an excellent inner life. In fact, it is those writers that I'm attempting to challenge, by this tirade, to look to grabbing the bigger market share. And I include in that challenge, writers who have not yet been successful in the writing market, but feel writing fiction is a gift they must pursue.

So how can we possibly rise to such a challenge? Let's look at the challenge in the two parts that I stated four paragraphs ago: 1. think up a good plot and give it the right action; and 2. let our light shine through it.

Action and plot -- Last year, I did something that some in the Christian world see as controversial: I read the first two books in the Harry Potter series. I figured that if one lady could single handedly turn a generation of children back to books, there had to be something I could learn from her.

J.K.Rowling's stories move along very quickly. She places a challenge or a cliff-hanger every few (if not in every) chapter. There's the big challenge to be conquered at the very end, but there's also a long series of smaller challenges all along the way so that the reader doesn't have to wait all the way to the end to feel like he or she has had a satisfying reading experience. Of course she keeps them guessing how the big challenge at the end will turn out, in almost the same way as a who-done-it.

There may be other factors as well, some perhaps not so healthy, but suffice it to say that one big lesson we can learn from J.K.Rowling is, the day of long detailed descriptions is over.

The long wordy narrative used by Charles Dickens (It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the longest of stories, it was the shortest of stories because I stopped reading it right about that point), and even by J.R.R.Tolkein, which I patiently plodded through at the age of 13 (which I can't imagine very many 13-year-olds today doing), just won't do. Video games provide a much quicker thrill, and Ms Rowling wisely took that into account.

In Dicken's day, they didn't have TV or movies. Attention spans, even of younger children, were much longer then, and long descriptions of ordinary things got their imaginations going and filled a gap -- now filled by TV and motion picture.

Even in the sixties and early seventies, when Lord of the Rings began to rock the literary scene, TV was only just discovering colour, and you could sometimes spot the nylon string they used to hold up the model space ships against the painted starry backgrounds. The parting of the Red Sea in The Ten Commandments looked like it was done in colour pencil. The most oft repeated words of children watching sci-fi or anything requiring special effects was "Oh man! That's so fake!".

Children were the hardest to fool, and they still are. But technology has caught up, not only with TV and films that make the unreal look very real, but now with video games in which children can actually navigate in realistic unreality (okay, virtual reality).

What I find amazing is that in spite of all that, literature has still proven to be such a powerful medium. It's just that we have a new set of rules to go by, that's all. But if we learn to apply those rules, long after we have forgotten all of the debate over whether the Harry Potter phenomena is a good thing or not, we will find that J.K.Rowling has done us all a valuable service simply by placing literature back into the centre of the playing field.

So, avoid long descriptions -- unless the description is of something so strange and wonderful that it becomes a part of the appeal, and does to the imagination what Spielburgian special effects do to the screen. What this calls for is imagination on the part of the author, innovation, and the daring to do what one hasn't seen done before. There will be criticism, to be sure, but anyone who advances beyond the traditional boundary lines of ordinariness can expect that. The next part, letting our light shine, we will look at how to know where the line is drawn between what would be God pleasing and what would not.

We badly need innovation. Peretti is also a good example of that. His including of angels and demons as characters in his narratives, was a bold step which also inspired me in my writing. He only targeted the Christian market, of course, but his fearless innovation is just the ingredient that could just as easily grab the secular world.

Also, avoid the copycat approach. We can learn a lot from people like Stephen Spielburg, J.K.Rowling, John Grisham, Stephen King, Tom Clancy and others, but we must be original. We learn, but we must innovate so that our ideas won't be immediately recognised as coming from another author or producer. A story about an orphan named Perry Hotter, who goes off to a school for young evangelists, would be a copy-cat approach. It might be read by some of the teens in your local youth group (provided their parents force them to) but it will never replace Harry Potter.

Does anyone still remember Jonathan Livingston Seagull? Soon after that made the best sellers list, along came a book by a Christian writer, called Benjamin Alexander Sheep (or something like that). It was cute, but it didn't get any of Jonathan's market share.

Another aspect of plot development we can learn is discovery. It could be deeper levels of reality, or something that makes everything else -- things that were taken for granted -- all suddenly come together. Mystery novels, of course, are built entirely around the discovery aspect, as the reader discovers at the end who the murderer really was. Other stories also make use of discovery, perhaps in a less profound way.

I remember the "discovery" experience I had when I finished The Hobbit, and started into The Fellowship of the Ring. At the end of The Hobbit, we rejoice as Bilbo Baggins arrives home with a new toy, a ring that not only helped him get around a dragon earlier on, but can now be used to avoid meeting unpleasant relatives. When Fellowship... opens, we realise that this very ring is the one ring of power that was once worn by the darkest of powerful forces who was thereby enabled to maintain a rule of tyranny over all of Middle Earth -- dark times they were, indeed. Now this very same dark force knows the ring still exists, and is even now, looking for it. Our gut reaction is, "Oh my God! And it's been sitting in the desk drawer all this time!"

The same discovery happens as we follow Harry Potter, an orphan boy sleeping in the closet under the stairs in his uncle's and aunt's home where he's a second class citizen. At the age of eleven he discovers for the first time who his parents really were, and he enters their world of witches and wizards, unknown territory to him, only to find that he is already famous. From an orphan boy with no future, he's suddenly in a different world where the opposite is true.

Or, what about Luke Skywalker, when he finds out he's the son of Darth Vador? (Or our discover that Darth Vador was once a cute little boy, and Yoda was once a boring committee member...!)

What discoveries from the life of faith can be drawn on to provide a story with mystique? What about sonship, or discovering of the true nature of God, or even what Paul calls the mystery hidden from before the beginning of the world? (Actually, Paul was quite innovative in using the concept of mystery that existed in his culture) Those are only ideas of course. No one's saying the discovery aspect even has to be something spiritual.

Where there are spiritual parallels, be original and innovative so they aren't too obvious. Again, times change. The character, Aslan may have been an ingenious parallel for C.S.Lewis to apply to Christ fifty years ago, but today's reading public may require something more subtle.

The rules of the game as far as action and plot go, are: 1. know what makes your audience tick; 2. use plenty of imagination, innovation and originality; and 3. keep the plot moving. Next, we look at...

...letting our lights shine -- There is much more we could have said about being relevant and using our imagination that I feel can be said better under the heading of letting our lights shine.

Once we are filled with the light of God, and our minds are renewed by what's really of God (and I'm purposely being ambiguous here as Christians from various backgrounds will have their own ideas on what that would entail), one of the results of that is the ability to distinguish what's really Biblical, what's truly required of us by God; and what has simply come along with our Christian experience as excess baggage. Or, to put it more simply: the difference between true Christianity and Christian culture.

The art of successfully writing faith inspired literature for secular audiences would consist of including what is essentially Christian, but leaving out the non-essential forms and traditions that the world has come to associate with Christianity. It's the art of evangelism without the subject knowing he or she is being evangelised. It's something like Jesus walking down the road to Emaeus with two of his old disciples, whose hearts burned within them, but not realising that the man walking with them was Jesus.

It's the presentation of the Person of Jesus, without spelling His name, J-E-S-U-S. Those trying to avoid alienating Jewish people call Him, Yeshua ha Moshiach. In the Islamic community, He's Isa, the Word of Allah. C.S.Lewish renamed Him Aslan, but the character of the real Jesus, by whatever name one names Him, is plainly recognisable.

In a book I'm working on now, a science fiction novel entitled The Zondon , Jesus appears as Wisdom, who speaks to the characters through a crystal, He's referred at one point to as the Word of Allah, He appears as the wandering Jew, He's even recognised for who he traditionally is, but he's never once referred to directly as "Jesus", or "Yeshua", or even "Isa". Even then, perhaps I'm more direct in my description than some readers may be comfortable with, but I catch them off guard by introducing Him first as the wandering Jew. Thus, He's no longer a handy symbol of a grand religious institution, but one who wields a two edged sword, of which the grand religious institution must also beware -- rather like Lewis' parallel of Christ, Aslan, who is a lion, but when asked whether he's a tame lion, the answer is "No". It's the portrayal of a God, who isn't the property of one institution or another.

The Zondon, like C.S.Lewis' Narnia series, is somewhat allegorical. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings isn't; meaning that there isn't a central character that represents Christ, nor a story that parallels the gospel. Nevertheless, Christlike attributes are reflected in a number of the characters. Themes that run throughout include that of the weak and simple confounding the strong, humble heroism, selfless courage, faithfulness, and love that overcomes lust. While the narrative doesn't present a gospel story, it instils values into the common psyche of society so that people will begin to recognise and desire true Christlike character when they see it -- even if they don't refer to it by the word "Christlike".

Quite a lot of this is subjective, of course, meaning that hard science and statistics will never give a conclusive answer, but it's worth asking nevertheless: Why is todays society, the Postmodern generation, suddenly asking all the right questions? Could it be that their thirst for reality and meaning was primed by people like Tolkien and other "closet Christian" authors?

Some might ask at this point, "Are you ashamed of the gospel of Christ? Then why not just say it as it is?"

This is all about "Saying it as it is", only without the usual terminology. The power of words is in their meaning, not in how you pronounce them, or what synonyms you choose.

And, no, I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. I'm sometimes ashamed of the way Christian culture is foisted off instead of the pure gospel. I'm sometimes ashamed of the cultural insensitivity exhibited in some of the terminology that we use without considering how it's received by the listener. I'm ashamed by the fact that many who are truly hungry to know the person of Jesus are turned away by some of our mannerisms and some of the hobby horses we insist on riding.

Neither am I ashamed of the cross of Christ. Crucifixes, I am ashamed of -- especially the ones that were waved under the noses of Jews in an attempt to forcibly convert them to Christianity. Sometimes, I'd prefer to use a different word than "Cross of Christ", because in some minds, the meaning has been totally altered from what it originally meant. But the actual concept that the words stand for is a powerful force that needs to be put on public display, but in a way that will truly communicate to people of every cultural background.

Crucifixes, church bells, steeples, pulpits, alter calls, terminology, tradition, even soapboxes, megaphones and testimonies that make faith sound like a MLM scheme (not that all do): some of these have their place, but will only ever reach a small segment of society as a whole. But the gospel is meant to be communicated to every creature.

The whole point in breaking out and going for the bigger market share is to realise the potential of fiction in penetrating some of the cultural barriers that have held out against the traditional methods of evangelism. With fiction in the secular market, we can do everything short of leading them in a "sinner's prayer" (even that can be done at your own website, reachable through a link in your "about the author" blurb). We can pre-evangelise, we can introduce concepts that can later be used as a point of reference, we can introduce the person of Jesus, we can instil values that will hold once they are formally evangelised; with the right mixture of creativity and subtilty, anything is possible. It's called being wise as serpents but innocent as doves.

Really, the best medium of communication isn't books at all, nor audio visual, nor any other form of mass media; but rather, the personal life and character of an individual who has truly been transformed by the gospel, and who has learned to dispense with the forms and mannerisms that hinder good communication. Such a person may say nothing at all, but only stand ready to give his or her life for one other person, or for a group of people. If that opportunity never arises (has it ever arisen for most of us?), he or she is available to give one's friendship, one's time, one's resources, and even sacrifice one's reputation.

If such a person happens to be a gifted writer, then writing can become an extension of that person's influence. What the writer is, is what the writing will naturally communicate -- and that will go so much farther than what a writer tries to say he or she is.

This makes the matter of knowing where to draw lines so much easier. Your own heart will tell you when you're going too far in innovating. Just as the Law was given for those with a sin nature, so, stipulated rules of decency and guidelines of what constitutes good Christian writing acceptable by the conservative reading public, are for those who don't really know inside and need to be told what others expect.

To simply go where your heart draws you, may indeed draw the criticism of the Christian public, just as it did for Jesus. But, just maybe, you can reach a few of the people that weren't being reached otherwise.

On being controversial -- Not long ago, I realised that the Christian writer's market may be the most difficult for me to target, simply because most of my work, while directed towards Christians, is simply too -- what shall I say -- "free thinking" would be my choice of words; but "rebel", or "unorthodox", or even "heretical" might be the label some would put on it.

I don't think any of my work would be heretical. "Heretic", if you go by the Greek definition, is one who divides. One who uses any docterine, or argument, or personal appeal to draw off followers to oneself so as to cut off their fellowship from an existing group, or tries to alienate a subgroup from fellowship with the main group, would be classed as a heretic according to that definition. We could refine that definition somewhat by being specific as to how fundamental the issues are that cause the division, and exactly how far the one group or the other as wandered from basic Bible doctrine, if indeed they have.

Whichever way you look at it, I don't think anything I've written could be classed as heretical. Controversial, maybe.

The only thing wrong with being controversial is in the trying to be. If we simply follow our heart, provided our heart is pure, that is, we speak truth only because we love the truth, controversy will have no trouble finding us. There are two extremes to be avoided, or if you will, two ditches on either side of the road. On one side is avoiding controversy at all cost, which is the sin of the status quo; and on the other, purposly stirring up controversy, or the sin of presumption. On that side, are those who love controversy. They love truth, but only insofar as it's effective in stirring up controversy.

Only wisdom perceived with a clear mind can steer a straight course between the two ditches, and even then, sometimes appearing on the surface to actually succumb to one or the other extreme. Those already stuck in either ditch will always think of those not in the same ditch as them as being in the opposite ditch. That too will always be part of the controversy.

Sometimes wisdom dictates that the time has not yet come to speak out. To everything there is a season. Maybe the time hasn't come yet for you to become a widely read author. As of this writing, that time doesn't seem to have come for me either, although I believe it's the time to write.

My Church History professor once said, don't write a book until you're at least fourty. It's just too easy to write something you'll forever regret. I'm fourty-six now, so it's time for me to write now, isn't it!

When he said this, he was lecturing on the life of Oregin, the early church father. Oregin began writing while he was still young, and continued his writing career until he was quite old. Many things he wrote as a young man, he no doubt regretted much later. Many who take his works at face value fail to realise this (forinstance, his writings were used both in the arguments for and against the Arian heresy that came later).

So, wisdom may tell you, "No, you aren't stuck in the ditch. Your time just hasn't come yet." Maybe it's only time to keep quiet and listen. When I had been away from Northern Ireland for many years, I decided to go and join my father some months after my mother had passed away. Many of my father's friends are the type who tend to get extremely hot under the collar whenever the Protestant/Catholic issue comes up. My father had been away long enough to know how rediculous it all is, but his advice to me was, "Don't be quick to speak, just listen." It's wisdom, sometimes, just to listen quietly, not only so as to know what the issues are, but also how deeply they run.

Don't mistake the time to be quiet with being stuck in a ditch. Failure to realise this will only send you veering into the opposite ditch, so you end up among those who tear down, rather than a builder of the kingdom.

When you have remained quiet and keep your eyes, ears and your heart open, then the time will come, as it came for Jesus at the age of thirty, when wisdom tells you it's time to speak out, that justice cannot be served unless someone sticks his or her neck out.

Speaking out on an issue must come from pure motives. Over harshness can be the result when speaking out on an issue in which one still has unresolved conflict -- either that or over leniency, depending on ones makeup. Forinstance, one who finds oneself succumbing to sexual temptation, even if it's the temptation to look in the wrong direction at the wrong time, may tend to speak out with extream harshness against sexual promiscuity. In the same way, one who has been wounded by another's words may be too quick to use ones own words to wound others.

These would be examples of "trying to be" controversial, resulting from our blind spots. Blind spots can be quite a doozer. For instance, how can one really know one doesn't have pride? The only people who can spot pride in our lives and are willing to confront us with it are people whose authority we don't recognise, either because they're proud themselves, or else, in our pride, we can't stand their humility, or else because they're our own spouse! There's also the two ditches between obvious pride and false pride. Two more ditches constitute legalism and lawlessness. Just like we mentioned earlier, those in either ditch are not only authorities in spotting those in the opposite ditch, but they tend to include those who are, in fact, on the main road.

What's the answer? The answer is to look straight ahead to the end of the road, the end the light is shining from, and make straight for that, and not look at either ditch. Paying too much attention to either ditch will only send us into the opposite ditch. Learning by example is the best way to learn, especially when our example is the Master. Learning by negative example is among the worst ways. That only drives us to extremes.

When we look at the Master long enough, and I'm not saying I have, we can see all things in His light. We can recognise wisdom even when it comes from those in the ditches, but we also know to reject condemnation and fear.

Better still, people begin to see the Master in us -- and in our books and movies.

The most timely books that changed the way we all look at the world and at life, were writen by those who got their bearings from Him, and thus weren't afraid of a little controversy.

The changing times -- Earlier on, I referred to Charles Dickens as a Christian author. If there is doubt on that point, (apart from looking at the websites listed in the side bar) consider English society of his day. If you don't have an accurate knowledge of that period of history, then picture English society as described in Oliver Twist, and David Copperfield. Who, but someone with both the mind and the boldness of Christ would so aptly point out the injustice of society in regards to the poor and especially towards children, and the hypocrisy of the religious charitable institutions in the way they went about dealing with the inequities? One can picture Jesus prophesying against the hypocrisy of it all just as He did in Jerusalem. Who, but someone who knew the heart of Christ could illustrate so skilfully through the narrative of Great Expectations the value of relationships and acts of love and compassion over and against the ultimate emptiness of seeking a high position in society?

As a social commentator Dickens was quite radical for his day. Oliver Twist was almost like propaganda literature. In fact, the characterisation of the boy, Oliver, seems a bit stretched as we read it today. We could easily think, how can a young boy from an orphanage where he was shown no love at all, go through so much intense pressure to participate in crime, and yet end up so pure and innocent? As the preface to one edition I read points out, Dickens' probable response would have been, "My point exactly! How do we expect anyone to go through our so-called charity programs, with the attitudes we go about managing them, and turn out to be anything but a criminal?" (I'm plagiarising! I just don't remember where I read that. If anyone recognises the comment, please email me ASAP with the source.)

Today, we've learned the lessons of Oliver Twist, so what was written as a message then, only comes across today as overly contrived characterisation. When I saw the BBC film, Oliver Twist, I didn't feel it was such a great loss that they had modified the character of the boy, Oliver, just slightly. Today, we need a more realistic story. In Dicken's day, they needed to get the point.

The social issues then are not the social issues we have today, largely due to countless other social activists, abolitionists, reformers, revivalists, not to mention authors like Dickens who simply let their light shine, and let it shine in the right place -- for the whole world to see, not just the Christian getto. When the radicalism of the believing community began to wane, the torch was taken up by socialists and the proponants of liberation theology.

Nevertheless, we do have social issues today that desperately need addressing. We need believing authors with the boldness of Charles Dickens to address our deficiencies today. Dicken's can't do that, because he lived then.

Likewise, John Bunyan's work made good reading for the general public of his day. Anything that contained adventure and imagination, as Pilgrim's Progress did, was grabbed up and read, and the fact that the book has obvious Christian overtones made no difference, because society thought of itself as Christian. However, Bunyan was a bit too radical for the Christian right of his day, so he had to do a lot of his writing from prison.

Neither Dicken's works, nor Bunyan's has the radical impact on today's society as it did in their own own time, but for almost opposite reasons. The same society that has inherited so much from people like Dickens, the abolitionists and child labour activists, today no longer considers itself Christian; and so would neither accept something so obviously Christian as Pilgrim's Progress, nor be radically moved by Oliver Twist. I also mentioned earlier that C.S.Lewis' portrayal of Aslan as a Christ figure may not go over as well today as it did fifty years ago, because society has been through almost as much change between Lewis' time and now, as between Bunyan's time and Lewis'. Tokien's work still has vitality though, but as a motion picture. The book is now back on the best-seller's list due to the release of the the first instalment of his trilogy for the screen. I'm sure there are lessons to be learned from that as well.

The message is obvious. We need -- we desperately need -- people who are full of their experience with God, who aren't afraid of displeasing the Christian status quo, who know what today's reader wants in a book (if today's reader doesn't know it yet, all the better -- that's called "cutting edge innovation"), and know how to write it.

The door is open -- go for it!