Marley's First Try

A man approached the miser. The newcomer's manner was neither jolly nor imploring, both of which Scrooge hated. In a way, Scrooge was disappointed: he had an itch in his kicking foot that only a really good punt would relieve. He consoled himself with the thought that if the man offered him no profit, he could nail him anyway as a time-waster.

"Hello, Scrooge!" the man called. Scrooge could not recognize him, though he seemed somehow familiar. He also reminded Scrooge of a doornail for some reason.

"Have you some business with me, sir?"

"Mankind is my business," the other replied.

"Then you shall soon be bankrupt. Please advise me when you sell your assets."

"Mankind is a good investment. Just look at that poor man over there."

"He's not just poor, he's a bum. If I got within reach, he'd pick my pocket."

"You must learn to see the good in your fellow man. Try reaching out to him with a friendly gesture."

"I'll give him a gesture--and you too."

"Look, if you'll just do the human thing for once, I'm sure it will change you."

"And if he does the wrong thing will you go away? I still say he's a bum."

"Then I'll leave. Fine."

Scrooge hailed the beggar like a long-lost penny. The man reached for in a friendly embrace. The next moment, Scrooge crowed as the mousetrap in his pocket wrung a yelp from his fellowman.

"Hah! Bum hug!" Then he grabbed the mousetrap back before the man could leave, and threatened to charge him rent for using it.

Marley grumbled as he trudged away, almost forgetting to fade from view. "Blast! Wrong vagrant! But I'll be back next year, and I'll bring reinforcements!"

===

Many people make the same mistake as Marley did: the focus of Christmas isn't how wonderful we are; it's how gracious God is. And that means we didn't deserve the help. Don't waste time looking for the good in others; take time to show them the goodness God has granted you.

No Neutrality Allowed?

I once thought I was going to be tossed out of a church for heresy. It didn't actually go beyond odd looks, but it was uncomfortable.

Some friends were teaching a Sunday school class, and they had a spare session because they finished the book early. (Actually, they thought they had two.) Since there was a lot of talk about eschatology, they asked me to explain the different views. I decided to start small and build: the first session was about different premill views, and the second was supposed to be on different views of the Millennium. The second was pre-empted by an all-church function, which was just as well: it might've caused brain hemorrhages.

So what shocking thing did I do for the premills? I simply took the first part of 1 Thess 2 and explained how different groups interpreted it: pretribs, midtribs, pre-wraths, and posttribs, in that order. I wasn't playing favorites; I gave strengths and weaknesses for each view. But that was seen as proselyting for some view or other. I'm still not sure which one I was supposedly promoting.

Part of the problem was that the assistant pastor's wife was there for some reason. (Yes, I know: I always wondered why the pastor needed an assistant wife too.) She was Not Pleased, and it spread. The worst problem came when she flat-out denied that pretribs have anxiety about finding themselves alone unexpectedly. (This is the "Left Behind" syndrome, where you think everyone else has gone in the Rapture and you didn't get called out.) I know for a fact that this anxiety exists, having experienced it myself and having heard other pretribs allude to it.

I decided not to defend the point. It turned out I didn't have to: an elderly lady laughed and said that she had been there personally and knew many others who did too. Oops!

Could I be blamed for that? Could be and was.

So what's the lesson here? In some areas neutrality is impossible. You're either One of Us or One of Them, and One of Us wouldn't go talking about Them as if they were anything but wrong-headed idiots. The real downside is that by being neutral you wind up being One of Them to everyone, which is a lonely position.

It's still worth it.

Wayfarer's Journal--conclusion

So what have we learned?

1. Don't accept rides from aliens. Even if the candy's good, the probes aren't.
2. 186,000 miles per second: It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
3. Only a simpleton judges a magazine based on its first two issues, especially when it isn't some kind of professional start-up.

This isn't to put Wayfarer's Journal down. If it were a Double-Edged project or an offshoot of Analog, I'd set the bar higher. As it is, its first two issues have been good, but it's really too early to review it. I'll check back in another year, perhaps.

It is not too early to get involved by reading and writing. That can begin now. I hope I haven't scared anyone off--I doubt I could if I tried. Keep your brain on, even though it's fiction, because ideas have consequences, and some are serious. Provide feedback and be specific: what was good or bad--and why?

Of course, this requires more than just reading WJ intelligently. You also need to read your Bible intelligently. You are doing that already, aren't you? Broaden your world by picking one of your trivial hobby-horses--something that doesn't matter to salvation, but which you go ballistic over anyway--and do your level best to understand what people on the other side say. If you're a premill, check out amills and postmills. If you baptize by immersion, find out why some sprinkle or pour. There are alien creatures and cultures all around us right here on earth, even in the family of God. You might as well get acquainted.

You might even get an idea for a story. Send it to WJ and see what happens.

Other Blog Links:
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Marcus Goodyear
Andrea Graham
Jill Hart
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Margaret
Rachel Marks
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Mirtika or Mir’s Here
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Cheryl Russel
Ashley Rutherford
Hanna Sandvig
James Somers
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Jason Waguespac
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Understand first...

I had a friend once, which in itself will amaze many people. He got a bit wired about the danger of postmillennialism (actually about "dominion theology"). Unfortunately, it soon became clear that he didn't know the difference between postmillennialism and posttribulationism. I told him, "First you make sure you understand someone's views. Then, if necessary, you rip their head off."

I'm not interested in ripping off heads, but I do try to understand ideas before jumping in. And I'm not trying to be the CSFF version of Simon Cowell. Wayfarer's Journal is a promising e-zine. I may even send a story their way to see how good their perimeter defenses are. But there's a need to check matters carefully, even in the non-fiction section.

For example, the current essay is "Are you Ready for Science Fiction Clergy?" From what writer Tom Hohstadt says, probably not. But it is just science fiction. The types of clergy he lists (both good and bad) aren't really types of clergy so much as types of people. You can find them all in the pews or even at an atheists' convention, if you look carefully. From what I read, I gathered that the pastor merely helps the congregation, which does all the major ministry--the equipping model. This is assumed to be the right way to do things, even though it would be far easier to argue scripturally for the more traditional "Pastor = Shepherd, Congregation = Flock" model. ("Pastor" means "shepherd," after all.)

Unfortunately, most readers wouldn't have the patience to sit through an exposition of different views of the clergy/laity relationship, so instead we get a fairly standard bit of Christianized futurism. It's a good playing field for Buzzword Bingo, but it assumes that major changes are ahead for clergy roles.

Quoth Qoheleth, "There is nothing new under the sun." Technology changes a lot, but people and social realities don't vary much. What will future clergy look like? Pretty much like the past variety, unless mankind changes so thoroughly that we turn into another species. Modern clergy and laity as people look a lot like the ones we read about in the first few centuries of the Church. Why should that change now? Well, because this is Now. It's Different. No one has ever gone through what I'm going through right now. In other words, because we're all teenagers at heart, and no old fogies could possibly understand.

Take the time to understand what already is and has been. The Future probably won't arise from nothing; understanding its past will give you a better mirror for things to come. Not a faddish, buzzword-heavy analysis, but true perspective. Who knows? You might not even have to rip anyone's head off.

Other Blog Links:
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Marcus Goodyear
Andrea Graham
Jill Hart
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Margaret
Rachel Marks
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Mirtika or Mir’s Here
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Cheryl Russel
Ashley Rutherford
Hanna Sandvig
James Somers
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Jason Waguespac
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Sci-fi With a Difference?

Wayfarer's Journal is only has a new edition twice a year, so don't let any old items on the site fool you: it is alive and updates between editions. It's also very new, so it could change markedly for better or worse, and the readers and writers can influence that.

WJ is dedicated to sci-fi (and only sci-fi: sorry, fantasy fans) with a spiritual, i.e., Christian, dimension. Like most modern projects, it goes out of its way to avoid being "preachy." While I still have problems with that, WJ is somewhat more open to a Christian message than some other putatively "Christian" e-zines.

But there are also problems. Consider "The Soulless," by Donna Sundblad, for example. Ignoring the numerous errors of grammar and punctuation--they really do need editing at WJ--there is preachiness. The topic is cloning, and if you can't predict the ending at least generally before you're halfway through, you're not trying. But the larger point is that it is preachy.

Really: just look at it. We have a rabble-rousing preacher, who is clearly of the same kind as those who preached against civil rights for minorities decades back, and he is the Bad Guy. (This is a Christian e-zine, too: count your blessings. Who knows what an atheist magazine might do? Oh, yeah: about the same thing.) So, since he is obviously a jerk, the Other View is just as obviously the Right One. There is no actual argument to sustain the viewpoint presented; it is supported by emotion and (let us be candid) prejudice alone. For the preacher evokes prejudice, and it is that which argues against his views. The result is propaganda: an uncritical reader will come away knowing less than he did going in.

Christians can do better than this.

(Part of the problem is the naive assumption that Greek and Hebrew had the modern English concept of the soul. They didn't. In fact, although a hundred years ago the word "soul" was vaguely like Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche, it has changed markedly since then. The same problem occurred in early Latin theology: the whole argument over "ensoulment" derived from trying to make the Bible languages have the same semantics as Latin.)

"Changed Minds," by Alice Roelke, is better, though it ends without hope, which is a cardinal sin for Christian fiction in my view. I'd still consider it the second-best current story. As for "Immunity Project," by Ann Wilkes, I don't see the Christian/spiritual angle, for the most part. There's a passing reference to angels, but the actions of the characters belie whatever faith they might profess. This could've been published in a completely secular magazine.

On the other hand, "Phobos," by Stoney M. Setzer, represents the direction I hope WJ takes. It is definitely sci-fi and definitely Christian--and I'm no fan of telepathy in Christian fiction. Imagine an episode of The Outer Limits written by a Christian.

I couldn't get Colleen Drippe's "Memories" to load, so I can't comment on it. I was surprised to find Grace Bridges' "Invasion" in the archive. It's a good story, but not regular sci-fi. Perhaps WJ will be more inclusive of other genres after all.

Other Blog Links:
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Marcus Goodyear
Andrea Graham
Jill Hart
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Margaret
Rachel Marks
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Mirtika or Mir’s Here
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Cheryl Russel
Ashley Rutherford
Hanna Sandvig
James Somers
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Jason Waguespac
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Faith Awakened Review, Part Two

There are two main, related ideas here:

1. God designs our lives much as a programmer designs a complex program, and
2. God can control even virtual reality.

I don't disagree with either point. The problem for me is the nature of the interface. You see, God designed us to interact with him and with each other through this world and these bodies. So it seems reasonable to conclude that these interfaces (body and world) are the best--though they are certainly tainted by sin.

But the characters in FA who comment on the virtual experience find it paradisical: they don't want to leave it. Now, I can believe that, though for very different reasons than given in the story. Could God reach people through VR? Certainly. Would they be more reachable there? Certainly not.

You see, apart from the interface issue--God's preferred interface is surely out here--there is the nature of the virtual realm itself. Even in FA, there are doubts. The main character has a "dark night of the soul" experience in VR, which I would consider typical, and some computer-generated friends seem artificial: their behavior is mechanical. Again, no argument here.

The nature of VR is to turn away from the God-given interface to a man-made one: artificial worlds and bodies. Reality points to God; does artificial reality do so? Wouldn't it underscore our sinful tendency to turn away from God and others, accepting only imaginary versions of them all? For all our electronic connectedness, we are more lonely than ever.

This is the problem of all technological "improvements" to God's design. The transhumanists believe that we can become better by re-engineering ourselves--something C. S. Lewis addressed with horror in The Abolition of Man. But making ourselves stronger or faster or even more intelligent wouldn't actually make us better in spiritual terms, and by moving us away from our original design, it could actually make us harder for God to reach. Follow God's design. Accept no substitutes.

Faith Awakened Review, Part One

Faith Awakened is a science-fiction story by Grace Bridges. It involves an artificial plague unleashed in a future world dominated by a single, evil government. There's also a fair amount of virtual reality, too, which is one of my main quibbles.

As far as the writing goes, there is certainly no problem: the story flows well, and the characters are well-handled. On the whole, I had no major "Wait a minute..." reactions, except to the idea that a small Irish town would contain a top-secret device that gets the main plot rolling. (And even then, who knows what kind of odd tricks a secretive, paranoid one-world government might get up to? Hiding things in out-of-the-way places isn't that improbable.)

The writer is passionate about God and ministry, which is refreshing after a lot of "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" Christian fiction. Even non-Christians will probably appreciate something forthright. (And no, there isn't any "preaching" in the sense of protracted religious exposition.) It's a good read, four out of five, I'd say, and fairly quick. (It's also a free download if you don't mind e-books, so get off your duff, already!)

To sum up the kinds of things that some people always ask about: no profanity or violence, no drug use, a certain amount of gore (the plague's a modified ebola virus, so it isn't pretty), a brief, non-graphic reference to off-camera extra-marital sex (and its consequences), ditto for married sex. Not even a one on my personal kinkometer, though.

More positively, there are some good theological points here, but I'm not going to identify them because you need to read the book yourself.

Downsides? I suppose someone will grouch because her one-world government isn't properly apocalyptic, though I'm not sure that the Antichrist (yes, I do take him to be a literal, future person) will be the first to gain global control, though I doubt anyone will retain it for long. (Based on some passages in Daniel, I'm not sure the Antichrist has political control over everything anyway; he just manages to get his way in general.) So this seems to me relatively minor.

There is an important issue--again, not fatal, just annoying to me. I'll cover that next.

The Sacred Cliché

The Sacred Cliché is the only one still applauded by critics, even though it’s as old as a seventies newscast. It involves someone with a disadvantage, whether physical (blindness, paralysis, etc.) or social (ethnic minority, female, etc.), who is put down based on the disadvantage. But it turns out that the disadvantaged person is amazingly (even impossibly) good at something, and the skeptic is completely blown away as a result. So the guy in the wheelchair can still beat him at basketball, the girl can still beat up a guy twice her size who probably has a lot more practical combat experience than she does, and so on.

I deplore this on two grounds. First, it’s patronizing to the disadvantaged person. If he has any sense, he likely knows that his disadvantage (even a social one, such as race) does not confer any super powers. He’s still average, like as not, and from my own experience I can tell you that the only super power a guy in a wheelchair has is that he can’t walk. The better approach would be to note that if the person has been told (especially if the disadvantage is social) that he’s stupid, incompetent, or something like that, again, he’s probably average, and thus superior to what the other person thinks. That can give the element of surprise. Will it be enough to take the villain? If the villain is above average, probably not. But the villain is also likely to be average, so even a slight and temporary edge can be enough.

The second problem is that it can lead to unrealistic thinking. Remember a few years ago when a guy escaped on the way to trial? (This was in Atlanta, I think.) He was a black belt in a couple martial arts, and he was built like a linebacker. His sole guard was a grandmother who was about a foot shorter than he was. When asked why they had such a guard for such a prisoner, the authorities replied that the guard had “so much spirit” that they figured she could handle him. In fiction, yes. But even fiction shouldn’t seem like fiction.