Why It’s Important to Read Widely

Why It’s Important to Read Widely

Several months ago, I got an email out of the blue, from a book reviewer and columnist for Psychology Today. She wondered if I’d be interested in doing an interview on The Collector of Burned Books that would focus on the importance of exercising our freedom to read widely.

Obviously, I said yes. Quickly. With joy. Because, guys, this is a real magazine, LOL. One I’d heard of. I was pretty stoked that this lovely woman, who’d interviewed some BIG, big names in the book world, wanted to talk to little ol’ me.

When she sent me her questions, I pretty much squealed in delight, because they hit all the topics and themes I wanted to draw out in The Collector of Burned Books.

She asked questions about why reading widely is important to critical thinking.

She asked questions about the link between freedom and freedom of ideas, freedom of thought.

She asked questions about how reading is linked to empathy.

When The Collector of Burned Books released a few weeks ago, Ms. Rose sent me the link to the article, which included several of the interview questions as well as a lovely lead-in she wrote. And she also shared that the article had been marked as an “Essential Read” in the education category, which made my day.

Because friends, it’s so important to read books that aren’t “our type of book” now and then. Not always, obviously. But sometimes. It’s important to stretch ourselves. To seek understanding. To take the opportunity that books give us to do something we can otherwise never do–live inside someone else’s head and heart for a few hundred pages.

Have you seen the article yet? If not, I hope you’ll go and check it out. It turned out beautifully!

Behind the Scene Heroes

Behind the Scene Heroes

In my research for The Collector of Banned Books, I came across a fascinating story that ended up both informing and then getting largely cut from the manuscript due to space issues.

My paraphrase-from-memory of the story is as follows:

There was a university professor who was boldly outspoken about his criticisms of the Nazi party. He knew very well he’d been reported, because Gestapo officers audited several of his classes. They didn’t immediately arrest him, which he assumed was because said criticisms were too far over their heads for them to understand, LOL. Even so, he knew it was but a matter of time before he was shut down, arrested, sent off to a camp as a political enemy. He’d had many friends and acquaintances forced from their positions for similar opinions, most of whom had been either forced into outright hiding or at least forced to abandon their tenured positions at prestigious universities and resort to professorships at small, lesser known colleges in small towns.

When he was called in by the Ministry of Education, he thought the game was up. Thought this was it. Thought he’d leave the place in cuffs.

Instead, he learned that they wanted to hire him. Send him to Italy to create a new German translation of Machiavelli. He glanced down at the file they had for him, saw that it was the official Gestapo-created file…and also saw that it was virtually blank.

No notes about his inflammatory lectures.

No notes about his clear political association.

No notes about all the complaints he knew for absolute fact some of his students had filed.

He was baffled. Completely baffled. But of course, he wasn’t about to let this opportunity pass him by. He accepted the job, went to Italy, and used the time there to build contacts with other resistance fighters. Eventually, years later, he was arrested for some of the activities that came about from those connections and sent to a concentration camp. He did survive the war, though. And when interviewed years later about his activities, he was asked why the Nazi government ever sent him to Italy to begin with.

He’d given it a lot of thought over the years. Because the Gestapo was known for their files. They had everything on everybody. More dirt on people than we can rightly fathom. Their files were known to be meticulous. So why were his so inaccurate?

The only conclusion he could come to was that a sympathizer had altered his files. In fact, he had an old friend slaving away in the bureaucracy who likely would have handled his file as it was moving into Ministry of Education hands, and though he never had the chance to ask this friend, it was the only thing that had made sense.

Someone had sanitized his file. Removed anything that would have made him look bad. Made him, in fact, look so nice and shiny that the Nazis trusted him with a state-sponsored trip abroad.

This story absolutely fascinated me. It first showed me the sad reality that most university professors were facing, how they were sanctioned if they refused to teach Nazi propaganda…but also because it showed that there were unknown, unseen, unsung heroes at work within the Nazi bureaucracy. 

These people saved lives. They helped undermine a tyrannical regime. The fed the resistance. 

And we don’t know their names or their stories.

I imagined one, though. In The Collector of Burned Books, Christian is much the professor in this real life account, left to wonder how he was selected for a sensitive position in Paris and given a military rank when he knew he’d been reported for inflammatory lectures. He knew he had a record, and when the Nazis showed up at his door, he thought he was being arrested, not commissioned.

How?

He can only muse, in the version of the story you can read. But in the original manuscript, I in fact had a third point-of-view character. And soon, I’m going to bring you his story as a tie-in novella, complete with read-along instructions if you want to do a side-by-side reading of this short and The Collector of Burned Books.

Erik Reinholdt joined the police force as a young man. Once a bully himself, his life had been changed by a generous family who set out to make him a friend instead of calling him an enemy. The Bauers influenced him to want to protect and defend instead of intimidate and hurt. That’s what led him to become a police officer…and it was why, as the Nazi Party grew in power, he saw the danger.

He knew what it was to be a bully. He recognized the signs in others.

Eventually, Berlin’s police force became the Gestapo. He still hadn’t joined the Party, so he was relegated to a desk job. Eventually, he had to make a decision: either join the Nazi Party or find a new job.

So he made a decision. He made a decision to stay where he was and see if he could work against them from the inside. He did it with a bit of an attitude. A desire to show the bullies what they got for their intimidation. He took joy in undermining them. In altering files. In erasing incriminating evidence against people and replacing it with glowing recommendations.

It was his form of protest. And it had a profound impact on Christian Bauer’s life.

Of course, Reinholdt’s story is more complex that just an eraser and a grudge. He, too, found himself on a tightrope. And soon, I plan to bring you his story in The Guardian of Secret Truth. (What do you think of that title? It’s still in the works, LOL.) It’s in part a fun addition to the story of The Collector of Burned Books.

But in part, it’s a tribute to all the many people in Germany and beyond during WW2 who fought back wherever they were, however they could. Who found quiet ways to save lives. Who never told their stories, because it wasn’t about them. But whose stories we can guess out, because of the lives forever changed by their resistance.

What’s With the Banned Books Craze?

What’s With the Banned Books Craze?

Many years ago–I think it was Christmas of 2017 if I’m remembering correctly–my best friend sent me a fun mug for Christmas. It had a bunch of book titles that were censored, and then when you put something hot it in, the black marks vanished and you could read the book titles.

Obviously, I thought this mug was super cool, and I used it enough that the regular paint started wearing off, leaving only the “censored” bits. But even as I received it joyfully, loved it, and used it…I’d also have said, had anyone asked, “I don’t really get the allure of banned books.” I mean, that image of the “revealed” titles above shows you why. The Satanic VersesNaked Lunch? I don’t even know what that second one is, but nooooo thanks.

And yet there were others on there I love. To Kill a MockingbirdUncle Tom’s Cabin. And The Song of Solomon–I mean, seriously, it’s a book of the Bible! (Which, yes, I know has been banned in many places and many times.)

So it’s safe to classify me previously as “torn” when it comes to banned books (pun intended–I mean my puns, thank you very much, LOL). I’ve never been in favor of the practice of banning, but that certainly doesn’t mean that I want to rush out and read every book that’s been banned. Some of them are on my “no, thank you” list.

Then I started researching for The Collector of Burned Books. And I started really thinking about the subject. I read books about the history of book bans and book burnings–and it is a long history, my friends. As long as there have been books, there have been people destroying them to make a statement. And I’ve arrived at a very different place from where I started. That’s not to say I’m now a fan of The Satanic Verses, don’t get me wrong. There are “bad” books that I have no desire to read.

But I no longer would say “I’m not in favor of the practice of banning books.” I would now say, “I am passionately against the practice of banning books.” And I would fight for the rights of even the books I hate, the books I don’t want to read. Let’s talk about why.

What Is a Book Ban?

Maybe that sounds like a silly question, but it’s where we have to start, as became very obvious when the Secretary of the Navy ordered the removal of 381 books from the Naval Academy Library in April 2025 (there’s an update on this below). I posted about it, calling it a ban. And there were quite a few people who argued that it was not a ban, because people could still get the book elsewhere.

So let’s start with the definition, according to Merriam-Webster.

1: to prohibit especially by legal means

     ban discrimination

     Is smoking banned in all public buildings?

also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of

     ban a book

So going from this definition, it’s clear that there are levels to a ban. A particular school, library, etc. can ban a book–prohiting its use or interfering with its distribution–and it still be available in other libraries, stores, etc. In Nazi Germany, we saw the absolute extreme, where having a banned book in your possession could land you in jail. In the United States, no book has ever been banned to that level. But obviously that doesn’t mean no books have ever been banned in the U.S. I hope we can all agree on that much.

I asked some librarian friends how they defined a “ban,” figuring they’re the experts on the matter, and they said this: A book ban is when an authority comes in from above and orders the removal of a book without first putting it through the usual challenge process.

Cue me being fascinated. Turns out, libraries have their own kind of “justice system,” let’s call it. If someone files a complaint about a book, saying it should be removed from the collection, the book basically goes on trial. A panel of librarians will evaluate the claim, read the book, they’ll debate whether the claim is justified or not. Maybe it just needs to be reshelved–from young adult to adult, perhaps–or maybe it really does cross lines that the library doesn’t want to cross, promoting hate, for instance, or claiming history that has been disproven. Maybe they determine that given their demographic, this book is indeed offensive and not worth keeping on their precious shelf space. In these cases, the book will be removed, and it’s not classified as a ban.

There’s also a natural culling practice, which anyone who’s gone to a library book sale knows. Books get cycled in and out all the time. Sometimes because they’re getting too worn from many reads…and sometimes it’s the opposite, and the books haven’t been checked out in a set period of time, so they’re determined to be not of interest enough to the readership. Again, shelf space is limited, choices have to be made. Libraries regularly replace history or science texts that are out of date, novels that no one’s reading anymore, you name it. Again, not a ban.

But if an authority figure–school board, library board, a government agency–comes in and tells everyone, “Remove these books,” and there’s no conversation, no “trial,” it’s not because of a set process–or even if that process is done by one small group and it goes out as “law” to all the others, whether they agree with the decision or not–then that constitutes a ban.

Who Bans Books?

Everyone. Seriously, I could end this section now. 😉 I especially find it (sadly) amusing how the same book will be banned by different sides of an argument at different periods of history.

Let’s take To Kill a Mockingbird as an example. In 1966, this book was banned from schools in Hanover County, Virginia, because the content was deemed “inappropriate.” First, because there’s mention of rape. Second, because they disapproved of the way racial issues in the south were portrayed. Showing “a flawed justice system,” for example, was said to be “harmful to young readers.” We know that the system was flawed, but they didn’t want it pointed out.

There have been many other times throughout the years that To Kill a Mockingbird was banned too, but a recent example comes from 2017, when it was removed because of the racial slurs (this is the most common complaint). I’ve also read of cases where it’s removed because it shows “a White savior” instead of giving agency to the Black characters.

What people agree on is that the difficult racial subjects are what gets it on the banned list. Harper Lee did something pretty remarkable, though, by angering both sides with her portrayal.

It does go to show, however, that book banning isn’t relegated to one set of people. Bans are demanded from both sides of any aisle.

Don’t We Have the Right to Say What Books Are in our Libraries?

And this is where we get onto shaky ground, and what the most heated of those arguing on my post about the USNA bans of April came back to–that the SecNav had every right to remove whatever he wanted from a military library.

Just like parents have every right to demand the removal of offensive books from schools.

Like stores have the right not to carry something.

Like libraries have the right not to stock a title or get rid of it.

And this is both true…and limited.

First, let’s admit the truth: no one can carry every book. No library, no bookstore. There are simply too many. Choices are constantly made, first about what to acquire and then about what to keep. This is reality, and it’s universal. These institutions have to make decisions, and like any decision, sometimes they also change their minds. This is within their purview.

Similarly, no one’s telling you, as an adult, what you have to read or can’t read. We do not have government-level Verboten texts that will get you arrested…though your choices could certainly be presented as evidence against you, in some cases. 😉 You always, always have the right to say, “No, I’m not going to read that” or “No, I don’t want this in my house.”

The difficulty comes in when you try to sell someone else that they can’t read something or have it in their collection, so when we move to removing things from libraries or schools… Yeah. It gets tricky.

Let me also say I 100% agree that we need to guard what our kids read. I readily admit that I “censored” Genesis when I read it to my primary schoolers, because I just didn’t want to have to explain quite yet what incest was and why Lot’s daughters shouldn’t have gotten their dad drunk and seduced him. Just…nope. Not a conversation I wanted to have with 7-year-olds. But it is a conversation I was ready to have with 12-year-olds, as we talked about what God-given sexuality is and how we should understand it and respect it and treat it as holy. Similarly, I don’t want agendas (of any kind) pushed down my kids’ throats. I didn’t want the liberal agenda, but I also didn’t want the conservative one presented as fact, even though I am conservative–especially in subjects like science. What I wanted was for my kids to learn how to think, to ask questions, and to thoughtfully consider subjects, rather than just being told the “right” stance to take.

So when we do encounter questionable content? We talk about it. We use it as a springboard for discussing the history of things, the purpose, what the author was trying to do, what we think about it. We have our own stances and opinions, and there are certainly times we decide we don’t want to read more of something. That’s our right.

What is not our right is to say other people can’t. We can certainly explain why we don’t recommend it. And we can absolutely recommend something we think handles a subject better. But that is very, very different from saying, “This book does not belong in our public or school libraries.”

Because here’s the thing. Even when it’s a stance I absolutely disagree with, I never, never have the right to say my way is the only way. Not in a country founded on freedom. Freedom that is not extended to the opposite point of view is no freedom at all. So yeah, I can argue that things are inappropriate for certain age groups, and I can certainly make my case for why something else is better…but that doesn’t mean that book should be removed entirely from a place, should be banned, should be labeled as garbage. By all means, recommend parental permission. And then you know what I think we should do?

What SHOULD We Do about Good Books with Questionable Content?

Talk about it. Those N-words in Huck Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird? The F-bomb in Catcher in the Rye? Yeah, they make us uncomfortable. They’re supposed to. Talk about it. Talk about why. Talk about how common it used to be (in the first example), and how far we’ve come. When I read something aloud to my kids and didn’t want to actually say the word in question (because I’m absolutely a stickler who won’t say any curse words out loud, ever, LOL), we first discussed the word used, and I showed it to them, and I explained why it’s not a word I want to say but why it was included. It became a lesson.

The non-binary character in the Rick Riordan book? Talk about it. The two dads in Renegade by Marisa Meyer? Talk about it. The way Christians are portrayed in The Handmaid’s Tale? Talk about it.

Because these are important conversations to have, and books present us with a safe place to have those conversations. Instead of getting angry with the books for what they include or a perspective they show, think about why you react as you do. Contemplate the author’s purpose, and whether you agree or don’t and why, and then have a conversation.

You know what will happen? Your kids will start thinking about things. They’ll develop their own lines and guidelines and won’t feel the need to rebel against yours. And as adults? We’ll be able to learn from things, whether we agree with them or not. We’ll begin seeing people who are different from us as people, people worthy of love and respect, and we’ll better know how to pray for them.

Don’t ban the book. Talk about it.

Bans Backfire

And we can’t ignore this very…key…point. Bans do not work–ever. They backfire. And the reason is simple.

Humans are rebels. We love to do what we’ve been forbidden to do. We buck against authority. And even if we’re not rebellious, we’re still curious. The minute I hear a book has been banned, you know my first thought, if I’m not already familiar with it? “Huh, I wonder why? I should read it and find out.”

When we make something forbidden, we make it alluring.

So if you really think a book is harmful? Ignore it. Let it die a natural death. Recommend something that addresses the same needs but better. Instead of taking away, add. Give the positive example.

When that list of 381 books removed from the USNA came out, I pored over it. I readily admit that few sounded “good” to me. Sure, I immediately ordered I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and The Hate U Give (both on the list), but that left 379 that I didn’t rush out to buy, though I intend to grab a few more as budget permits. But as my daughter (almost 20 at this point) and I were talking about the books on the list, I said something like this: “I admit that the books on transgender subjects don’t interest me, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be accessible. Honestly, I just don’t understand the issue that well, so I don’t feel equipped to discuss it. So…maybe I should read a few books on it after all. How else am I ever going to understand?”

And until I understand, how can I explain my own stance on the subject? Until I understand, what hope do I ever have of talking about it in a convincing way? Until I undertand, how do I know how to pray for the people who are dealing with these issues?

A Quick Update on the USNA Ban

In late May, the USNA bans were quietly adjusted. Most of the books removed were returned, after the department took a more careful look at the list, the keywords that had been used to do the initial search, and the actual subject matter and how said subjects were dealt with. The final removal list was only in the 20s.

On the one hand, that’s a victory. Because as I said at the time, these university students ought to be trusted to deal with any subject, and having those ~360 books returned is a big step in the right direction.

But that still leaves more than 20 books removed–something unprecedented in military academy history. Each administration absolutely has the right to alter curriculum and they routinely provide a “recommended reading list” large enough to pretty much guarantee no one has time for the not recommended books until they’re upperclassmen. But never before have they removed books that a military library had deemed relevant enough to purchase and add to a collection. The fact that the number is smaller now does not negate that point.

What are they afraid of? What is so powerful about those books that they are deemed “dangerous”? And if they are…? Then maybe we NEED to be talking about them, evaluating them, and discussing why and how they’re dangerous–because they clearly represent part of our society. Ignoring it, labeling it, and banning it does not solve it, if we deem it a problem. All it does is give us permission to silence the voices. And friends, silencing voices does not end well.

In Conclusion: What’s With the Banned Book Craze?

Simply this: every single book ban is an attempt to curtail freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Every…single…one. You do not have to like a book. You do not have to read it. You have every right to not put it on your own shelves.

But when you try to keep it out of other people’s hands, then you are saying, “You do not deserve the freedom I want.” And that is dangerous. Not to mention that when the power shifts–because it will–what will then keep them from removing your books? If you ban books that promote transgender issues or LGBTQ+ issues, for instance, then what happens when, in a few years, a new administration wants to ban anything Christians, because Christians, they might argue, promote hate for those people groups, as evidenced by the previous bans?

If I want freedom, I have to champion it for EVERYONE. The books I love AND the books I hate.

Because while we each have the right to make our own decisions, we do NOT have the right to make anyone else’s. You want to convince people that your way is best?

Then prove it. Prove it through love and thoughtful conversations. Prove it through defending people whether you approve of their every choice or not. Prove it by treating each person with the dignity that comes of being made in God’s image. Prove it by standing up for their right to read whatever they want, even when you find it “disgusting” or “hateful.”

I stand with the banned. Not because I love each banned book, but because I love the freedom to write, publish, read, buy, and check out whatever I want. Because I can learn from those books, whether I agree with them or not. And because we need to read the things that offend us…otherwise, we’re bound to keep repeating mistakes, falling into hatred and division, and abusing power.

What’s with the banned book craze?

A lot. You should check it out. There’s so much to learn in those pages.

The Danger of Dehumanizing

The Danger of Dehumanizing

In the coming weeks, I’m going to be talking a lot about the themes in The Collector of Burned Books. That’s gonna cover the obvious (book bans and burnings), but we’re going to go deeper than just that. And I wanted to start today with a question I received in a blog interview I answered a couple weeks ago, and which came up again in a video podcast interview I recorded with Tricia Goyer. A question that, in fact, is what led to this book being published by Tyndale House after I was with Bethany House for a decade.

Why did you humanize Nazis?

“We just can’t have a hero in Nazi uniform. It would be best if he isn’t German at all. Can he be French?” That’s what the team at BHP said, and I absolutely understood their stance. We don’t ever, ever want to justify or condone what the Nazi Party did in Europe in the 1930s and 40s. From their stance, it didn’t matter that my hero wasn’t really a Nazi. Didn’t matter that he’d been calling them his enemy long before the rest of the world knew to fear them. All that mattered was that he was in uniform.

It’s a dangerous line. A risky line. I get that.

But it was also 100% necessary to the story, so I refused to budge.

But you know what? It’s more than that. I didn’t just humanize (some) Nazis (and have others be complete villains) because I needed someone inside the library that was Nazi-controlled, though that was the plot reason. I humanized Nazis for one very simple reason: because they were humans. And if we ever forget that, we run a horrible, horrible risk of repeating their mistakes.

In The Collector of Burned Books, I point out first a sad truth. For many people in Germany during that era, if you didn’t join the Party, you risked losing your job, your security, or being outright arrested. My hero, Christian, eventually joined to try to protect someone he loved. It backfired–as it so often did. And he wasn’t silent about it. He spoke out, condemning the Party line on certain subjects…and he was reported to the Gestapo. He’s still not sure why he wasn’t arrested, why he was sent to Paris as the “library protector”…but he suspects it’s because he has an old friend much like him. A friend who had joined the police force before the Nazis came to power, who wanted to protect and serve. But the police became the Gestapo. Because this friend dragged his feet about joining the Party as well, he was relegated to a desk job in the filing department…where he fought back quietly by altering files. Christian’s, to start. But not just his. Whenever he could get away with it, he erased condemning information from the files that passed his desk, so he could continue to protect and serve the people of his city.

People really did this, guys. I’ll tell you one of the historical stories later in the month.

But these people are examples of a lot of people in Germany who were technically members of the Party. They were people who never really believed in it. Who wanted to keep fighting. And who chose to fight from the dubious safety within that Party.

Those, though, are the easy cases. There are more, and they’re represented in this book too. For instance, we have Kraus. He’s nineteen, and he enlisted for his slice of glory…only to be assigned as aid to a librarian. Boring, he thinks. He grew up in the Hitler Youth. He was indoctrinated from a young age into the Nazi ideals.

He’s never been taught otherwise. Never taught to think for himself. Never taught to question and learn and see the other as something deserving of freedom. Does that mean he’s beyond redemption? Not human? Does that mean he can’t learn, can’t come to realize that his “enemies”–people of different races, creeds, or politics–are people too, people who deserve life and freedom and respect?

There were many in Germany living in constant fear, who had to go along or they’d be sent to a concentration camp. There were many who couldn’t fathom that horrors were being committed, because they were unfathomable. Impossible. Couldn’t possibly be. There were plenty more who were bitter and defeated and desperate for a chance to reclaim what Germany had once been. Have you ever read the terms of surrender from the Great War? The German people were stripped of so much. Of course they were bitter. Of course they felt oppressed. Of course they wanted to restore Germany to its former glory. Who wouldn’t? They were people. They were humans. They were a lot like you and me.

But there were the monsters too. The true believers. The people who not only couldn’t believe atrocities were happening or were trying to quietly fight them, people who not only had been educated into the Nazi mindset, but who craved it. Who helped form it. Who were the first to sign up for it. Who really, truly thought this was the way Germany would claim the future it deserved. Who really believed they needed to purify their society (that’s what they called it) and get rid of anything “disgusting.” It included Jews, yes, and other races that were “degenerate,” like Slavs, Romani, and Blacks. It also included homosexuals. People born with deformities. Those with mental illness.

Like you, I look at people who euthanized–MURDERED–children or handicapped or those with illnesses beyond their control, and I am HORRIFIED. My first, gut reaction is to call them what we probably all think they are. “Monsters!”

And by the definition we have in mind, they were. There were people who had embraced evil. Who were letting it cavort through their streets, their schools, their homes, and certainly their government agencies.

But friends, here’s the thing. They were not demons. They, themselves, were not evil. They were people. Human. People who embraced evil, thinking it was good. They were monsters who were also men. They weren’t born without souls. They weren’t something Other, something Else, something we could never be.

They were just…like…us.

And that is why I will humanize Nazis. That is why I will write a book with many examples of Germans, some “good” and heroic, some “bad” and villainous. Because WE, you and I, are the same. We have the potential to be heroes or villains. Good or bad.  And we need to be careful, friends. Always, in every generation, every country, every church, every political party. We need to be careful that our pursuit of what we think is best doesn’t lead us into drawing lines that dehumanize.

Because when we say someone is no longer human, that they’re just a monster…that means it doesn’t matter what we do to them. It doesn’t matter if they live or die. That they are beyond redemption. That God does not love them.

Whose lie does that sound like?

The Nazis used that very tactic, and it’s what we hate them for. So…how can we do the same to them and not fall into the same trap?

So yes. I have Nazis in my book. Some are villains…and one is my hero. Many others are somewhere in between. True believers but who will still protect someone they like. Indoctrinated youths who can still learn there’s another way. All of them, even the nasty ones, are people. They are humans.

And I will show that. Because the moment we stop seeing them that way is the moment we become more like them than any of us want to be.

Theology in Fantasy

Theology in Fantasy

 How to Pick Your Fantasy World

When I decided to write a fantasy, the first thing to decide was this: Do I set it in a purely fictional world, or one based on our own?

Most go the “completely fictional” route. And I can appreciate that, absolutely. I can appreciate that then, all the theology is allegorical or else assuming that God will have made a way of salvation for these other worlds and people too, and would make himself known to them.

I love that method and will likely use it for some future books. But it just wasn’t how Awakened came to me. The entire premise began for me as a “What if…?” in our world. What if Christ delayed in returning, what if the world suffered through a Great Cataclysm, what if God sent gifts to help mankind claw its way out of a new dark age?

I knew as I created this world, with its Christianity still intact (but in which language had changed here and there), that there would be those who loved it and those who hated it. I did it anyway because that was how the story unfolded for me, and while I will absolutely change most things about a story in edits to make it better, there are always key, core things that I do not change from the way they came to me, not unless God makes it very clear to me that I should.

But I’ve received some feedback from some concerned readers about some of the things in this story, so I wanted to take a moment to address them…without giving anything away. 😉

Theology in the World of the Awakened

Blood Ceremonies

First of all, there is a blood ceremony that’s critical to the society, how the “magic” (which is a combination of “ancient” nanotechnology and gift from God) is Awakened. One reader pointed out in dismay that the Bible forbids blood ceremonies, so why would I choose to do that?

My response is that we should always ask why God forbids something. In the case of blood, He makes it clear: Life is in the blood. That’s why the Israelites were strictly told not to consume blood…and it’s also why it was such a key part of Israelite sacrifice, where blood was sprinkled on the altar and out over the people as well. Blood was in fact KEY to ceremonies, but it had to be done in proper form by the correct people in order to not be an abomination. It was to be treated with respect and dignity, and when NOT treated in that proper way, it would make one unclean.

From my childhood and teen days onward, I have been drawn in my thoughts over and again to the power of Christ’s BLOOD. A Stray Drop of Blood, my debut novel set around the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, explores this when a drop of His blood lands on my heroine and changes her forever.

Blood is powerful. So powerful that Jesus, in John 6, shakes his listeners’ minds and hearts when He tells them they MUST do what was strictly forbidden to them–they must DRINK HIS BLOOD and EAT HIS FLESH. This was earth-rocking, friends. This was in direct contradiction to the Law. Or rather…to their understanding of it. As followers of Christ, we know that as the perfect, eternal sacrifice, He fulfilled that Law and was that lamb, slain for us all. And His blood? I fully believe in transubstantiation–it’s what drew me to the Catholic church. I do not believe communion is symbolic, because Christ was very, very clear in His way of speaking of it. He did something miraculous, and He offered His blood as salvation to us all.

This is why I chose to use blood as the means by which “magic”–remember, gift directly from God in my world–is brought forth. It’s this God-given power that became a physical salvation for people in the days following this cataclysm, and that’s meant to be symbolic of eternal salvation as well…which comes from His blood. “Blood ceremonies” are only forbidden when they are in opposition to God’s will and use for blood. They were in fact ALWAYS a key part of Israelite tradition in the days of the tabernacle and temple, and are also the key part of Christian tradition as well, through communion. 

Next, angels.

Angelic Beings

Without spoiling things, let’s just say that in the world of the Awakened, it is posited that the method by which God gave His gift of “magic” to humanity involved a few select angels taking on human flesh, marrying humans, and creating offspring.

Now. Yes. I know that Genesis 6 says this is an abomination. Sort of.

Here are the verses in question:

When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, ‘My spirit shall not abide in mortals for ever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwards—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.

So, first…most Church Fathers did not read this as talking about angels. The traditional view is, in fact, that angels are beings of pure spirit and could not procreate with men, as they are of completely different substance. The traditional reading of these verses is that “sons of God” referred to the righteous offspring of Seth and “daughters of humans” were the offspring of wicked Cain. If this is the proper reading, then the problem is not mixing with angels but mixing with the unrighteous people who had turned their backs on God.

I find this 100% reasonable. In the real world, I think that’s likely a sound interpretation, even if it wasn’t my own original reading. The plain text can definitely be read as “angels,” though I absolutely get why many/most theologians decided it wasn’t the only or perhaps best way to read it.

But.

But. Then we have the Book of Enoch.

Let’s be clear. The Book of Enoch is not Scripture. BUT…Paul did refer to it in the book of Jude in a way that hints that he considered it a relevant prophecy. And taking Enoch into account would change everything about how Genesis 6 is read.

If you’re not familiar with this ancient text, it was known of but lost to history until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and a copy was found in them. It provides more information about those early days leading up to Noah, written by Enoch, Noah’s great-grandfather and known to us as the man who “walked with God and then was no more,” implying that God caught him up into heaven without him first tasting death.

In Enoch, chapters 6-9, we get an expanded story of these “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” In this version, it states explicitly that they were angels, and that there were 200 hundred of them who decided to do this evil thing and swore an oath together, so that only one wouldn’t take the blame. They chose human women, took them as wives, and sired children.

But that’s not the only thing they did. They also taught these humans things they weren’t supposed to, and the list is as follows:

  • charms
  • enchantments
  • the cutting of roots
  • familiarity with plants
  • how to make swords, knives, shields, and armor
  • metallurgy, including how to use antimony (which hardens other metals)
  • cosmetics
  • gemology
  • dyes and paints
  • astronomy and astrology
  • meteorology
  • understanding the signs of the earth
  • understanding the signs of the sun
  • understanding the course of the moon

Take a look at that list. While it includes things like charms and enchantments that we identify with witchcraft, it also includes things that are the foundational elements of what we call “culture.” The basics of art, of medicine, of all fields of science, of technology.

Were these things the sins? Is it an affront to God every time we look at storm clouds gathering and say, “Huh, looks like rain”? When we calculate when the moon will be full or new? When we chop our root vegetables with knives? Or take a cutting from one plant to grow another? Wear jewelry? Dye fabric?

Obviously not. If God simply hated these things and didn’t want mankind to have them at all, He certainly wouldn’t have sent His Spirit to fill the craftsmen creating the Ark of the Covenant and tabernacle with knowledge and skill of these very things, and the ability to teach it. So what was the sin here? What qualifies as the abomination?

I posit that it was disobedience that was the true crime. That these creatures acted without permission, without instruction. They chose their will above His will.

God, being God, could have stopped them, just as He could (but does not usually choose to) stop humans in our sins. He chose, instead, to let them give their gifts to humankind, even if it was out of turn. And when He soon after sent the flood, that flood did not wipe out the knowledge these angels brought with them. Did it wipe out their bloodline? We can assume that it did, but we can’t actually know, because it doesn’t ever tell us. For all we know, a bit of it could have been preserved in one of Noah’s daughters-in-law, and that could have been allowed for a purpose of God’s that He didn’t make explicit to us. This is 100% pure speculation, and again, based on a text that isn’t Scriptural…but which is the only text that makes explicit what “Nephilim” (the race of people descended from these angels-and-humans) are. Again, the traditional reading of Genesis was that “sons of God” were not angels, and that “Nephilim” should not be interpreted as “human-angel-hybrid” but rather its other definitions of “tyrant” or “powerful person.”

Reasonable…but not as interesting, right? 😉 I know when I read those verses as a young woman, my mind went immediately to the more supernatural reading, and for the sake of a fantasy novel, I found that more fascinating to explore.

So if the angelic reading is what Genesis 6 means (and again, I’m NOT saying it is, it’s just a fun “what if” to play with), then who’s to say God wouldn’t, at some point in time, will this thing He didn’t will then? That He wouldn’t have instructed angels to come and give of their blood to mankind? And if your answer is “God doesn’t change His mind,” that’s a blatant lie–or at least, it is from our perspective.

God sent a plague to wipe out the children of Israel who were taking wives from among the pagans as they wandered in the wilderness.

God also instructed someone to marry Rahab, a pagan prostitute, and she’s in the lineage of Christ. And this happened very soon after that above-mentioned plague. As in, the plague cleansed the camp of the unfaithful right before they began their final march to the Promised Land, which led them to Jericho. (The “But…!” will be explored momentarily.)

God told the Israelites not to eat unclean food.

God also told Peter that He’d made all foods clean now.

God abhors dishonesty and lies.

God sent a lying spirit to the prophets of Ahab in 1 Kings 22, to convince him to do something.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. God’s Word is not stagnant, it is living. I nearly wrote “it adapts to different circumstances,” but that’s not quite right, is it? Circumstances are subject to it. HE IS the Word. HE IS the Law. HE IS the definition of right and wrong. So while we might occasionally not understand why something is blessed in one circumstance and not in another, we can trust that it makes sense from His heavenly perspective and assume it is not, in fact, a contradiction…but we cannot deny that He gives these seemingly-contradictory instructions.

The Rahab example makes that clear, doesn’t it? Those other pagan women, they were bringing their idols into the Israelite camp with them, they hadn’t forsaken their gods. Rahab, however, did. She chose obedience to God above her own people. And so, she received the gift of being grafted into the family of God.

So if (again, yes, big IF) God were to decide to send angels to earth for this purpose, in order to bestow something new on humanity, this is neither God changing nor a sin. This is God saying, “NOW is the time I intended it. Not before, not after. NOW. Who will obey?” Much like God chose to call clean what He’d previously called unclean.

Why Did I Choose to Write the Story This Way?

In part, because of trends in the general market romantasy space. Now, hear me out.

In some very, very popular books, we see all sorts of magical and supernatural creatures, including angels. Including, even, the specific types of angels mentioned in the Bible. But in these stories, these characters are as fallible as humans, as given to lusts, as perverse, as self-serving. They are power-hungry and sinful.

Friends, this is the image the world is consuming about what a seraph or cherub or other angel is.

And it’s a striking resemblance to what the versions talked about in Enoch are. But we know their true name. They are fallen angels. They are demonsThey are creatures of awe-inspiring power who chose their own will above God’s will.

But they were the minority. And there are other creatures of the same substance who chose instead to align their will perfectly to God’s. These are the angels who remained in heaven. Who are God’s messengers to us on earth. Who fight for us, alongside us, who go to war with the fallen.

I wanted to show this. That where, if Enoch is true, some angels in the beginning days did this thing in a way that was an abomination, it would look very, very different if God were the architect of the unions. If God were the direct Giver of the gifts. That what could be a curse upon us, when stolen, can be a blessing when given rightly.

Because this, my friends, is how God has shown himself to work time after time, year after year, epoch after epoch. When we take against His instruction, as Adam and Eve did in the Garden, we receive a Curse. But did He never give knowledge of good and evil? Is that not in fact discernment, one of the Gifts of the Spirit? Did He not give it to Daniel? Even to Solomon (who then misused it)?

In my Awakened world, my prayer was that through the words of these angelic characters, we can in fact get a glimpse of what true submission to His divine will looks like.

It looks like sacrifice.
It looks like selflessness.
It looks like love.
It looks like purpose.

Now, if you still have a problem with the theology in these fantasy novels…that’s fine. 😉 I do invite you to remember that this is not just FICTION, but FANTASY. I’m assuming things that it is utterly ridiculous to assume. Things that seem contradictory to some ways of reading Scripture (but which are not necessarily, when you dig deeper into passages that are incredibly mysterious and look at reasons, not just instructions). I hope I’ve at least explained why I started from these perspectives, and of course I hope that you can enjoy the story as pure fiction. But if you can’t, I understand that too. Skip the series. That’s okay.

Thank You, Readers!

And thank you, my lovely readers, for always being willing to reach out to me when I present in my fiction something that gives you pause. I’m certainly not infallible, and chances are I’ve unintentionally messed up fine points of theology before and will do so again. I appreciate your care for me and for my understanding and your willingness to engage rather than judge. In this particular case, I hope my explanation proves that I was not dismissing Scripture, but rather digging to the “why” of very mystical texts in ways that I am not saying are really true, but which make for a fun story. Is it speculative? Fantastical? Yep. By its very definition. But I do not believe these interpretations are heretical. Simply…implausible. 😉

Now just wait until I tell you how I once read Revelation as science fiction and imagined the New Jerusalem that was descending as a spaceship… 😉

Purpose and Legacy

Purpose and Legacy

A couple weeks ago, my daughter and I were driving out to meet my parents and grandmother for lunch, and we were talking about what Xoe might want to do after college. She still dreams of writing and illustrating, yes, but she knows it could take a while for that to pay the bills. And, she said, her Bible study group had been talking a lot about making sure what they choose to do matters. That whatever profession they pursue, it’s a service to others.

I smiled to hear her saying this, because it’s something David and I have talked about endlessly over the years. (I didn’t point out that she’s no doubt heard us talking about this approximately a thousand times, LOL. I totally get she has to encounter it for herself, in her own life, in her own way, and make it her own through that encounter.)

As we drove, we talked through how the path she’s considering–linguistics–indeed is (or can be) a huge service, how it can make a difference. How important communication and understanding really is.

That evening, as David and I were driving to a book study at church, I relayed bits of my conversation with Xoe, and he added to it a question he’d just heard on a podcast that day. A question that neither of us had ever thought to ask before about our businesses:

“Where do you see your business being in three hundred years.”

That one got a pause from me, I’ll admit it. I was expecting three years. Maybe even thirty. But three hundred? Wow. That’s a scope I’d never considered. How many businesses even make it that long?

But it’s a question that makes the mind start spinning, isn’t it?

In three hundred years, will we, all our work, be forgotten? Or will we have made a lasting impression on the world? Obviously we aren’t all going to participate in country-shaping events or become national heroes or set records that will still be set then. But are we building legacies that last, doing service that will make a mark?

Honestly, we haven’t yet talked through what that would mean for our company, but given that we work in books, it’s a concept worth exploring. Books can last long beyond the writers go home to be with the Lord. Our words, our thoughts, the stories that have shaped our hearts can continue to shape others. If.

If.

If they’re stories that continue to resonate. If they elucidate a truth that can shine through the darkness for ages to come. If we speak to the unchanging heart of humanity.

Will any of our books outlast us that long? Any of mine? Will our company live on after we do? I don’t know.

But it’s worth working for. Worth writing for. Worth reading for.

I don’t write the books I do so that future generations will read them–honestly, I have no idea if my books will continue to be of interest to people in decades or centuries to come. So many are being published these days, mine are just a few among many. One voice in a multitude. I believe that voice matters, and I will follow the call of the Lord to use it, to keep sharing the stories He gives me.

And I will give them my all. I will make them the best I can. I will strive, always, to share His truth–because that is what lasts decades, centuries, millennia. My deepest prayer is to partake of that, of Him.

The day after those conversations with Xoe and David, we had a power outage in the evening. Two different people that week had mentioned reading and loving The Shadow’s Song, one of my biblicals for Guideposts that came out a couple years ago. I couldn’t honestly remember much of the book–I hadn’t read it since I first turned it in. So, with nothing else I could really do but with a fully-charged laptop battery, I opened up my file and started reading.

This was a book I wrote quickly, as one of many due that year. It’s short. Didn’t take me long to read. But as I read it, I had so many moments where I thought, “Wow, that was really insightful. Whoa, I didn’t even remember that. Hey, this is actually really good.” LOL. Silly, I know, for one of my own books…but important. Important to remind myself that even these quick little stories that I write in the course of a week mean something. They still have my heart in them and, more importantly, seek the Lord’s.

That’s what I have to make sure everything does. All the work of my hands. All the work of my mind. All the work of my soul. Only when it points to Him is it worthy. Only then will it stand the test of time.

Everything we do needs to have that purpose. And that is when we know we’ll leave a legacy behind us.