I love it when writers I enjoy get reflective and journal their process — when they slice open their artistic arteries and bleed out on the page, revealing what courses through their hearts. That’s why I enjoy [reading] writing books like Stephen King’s memoir on writing, as well as David Morrell’s, Ray Bradbury’s, Anne Lamott’s, Frank McCourt’s (though more about teaching than writing), Nancy Kress’s, a collection of essays on writers and their public mortification and, of course, Orson Scott Card’s excellent work.

While amazed at how many active cat-bloggers there are in the world, I’m also periodically impressed by high-quality writing by folks who aren’t well-known for having dozens of lucrative book- and syndication-deals. I mean, I expect, say, Malcolm Gladwell to be endlessly fascinating (emphasis on endless!), or Teresa Strasser to be engagingly snarky and uncomfortably funny. They do not disappoint.

But I don’t expect the average blogger to craft entertaining and interesting blog posts. So, when I do find one — especially one of Pentecostal bent — I sign up as a fan. If they had tee-shirts for sale, I’d probably wear one. A very large one.

When I first started building my PneumaBloggers list, I sifted the blog-swill for “viral” blogs by Pentecostal and charismatic writers. Searching for terms common to our faith-ghetto, I’d check out the resulting hits and surf away shaking my virtual head more often than not. But once in a while, every couple hundred hits or so, I’d occasionally dredge a shiny jewel from the slimy morass.

When I landed on the Lone Prairie Art Works site operated by Julie R. Neidlinger, I really wasn’t sure what I had in hand. What I found didn’t look all that “churchy” (I wasn’t really clear what I needed for my list of bloggers yet), and it wasn’t obvious that Julie was indeed Pentecostal or charismatic. But I liked what I was reading and I dug deeper until I found her religious leanings … and was sold. (It’s in her FAQ.) Sadly, no tee-shirts. I was probably frustrated trying to pin Julie down because right about the time I was checking out her weblog in late 2005, she was in the process of shutting it down, and rising from the ash-heap with a new vision of herself as a writer. And a new blog.

Whether Julie’s blogging about Jesus Camp, Charlize Theron, funny family tech support, or multi-farc dementia (!?), it’s almost always an interesting read. She’s snarky (whatever that means, but it feels right), sassy, completely unafraid to call “bullsh*t!” (which I am obviously afraid to do), reflective, self-critical, and thoroughly faithful.

Julie’s not a corporate blogger.

I bring all this up (writers writing on writing, good bloggers, and Julie) because yesterday Julie posted a great, thoughtful piece on why she blogs, why she’s quit (or nearly quit) several times, and what she gets out of it now:

Lone Prairie Blog
Losing first loves in the blogosphere

I highly recommend it, not only because Julie’s a good writer, but because this post highlights two things I think make a great writer in any field, whether blogging or not:

• Write for a reason
• Write for yourself

Write for a Reason

I’m not talking about finding the right subject matter, or the right theme here. I’m talking about understanding what you’re getting out of writing. Sure, in the early days, you may not know why you are compelled to write—  to draft lengthy emails, to discourse in heated forum exchanges—  but if you can lift your head out of the virtual swirly of words you’ll clarify some things in your head and heart. Do you write to learn more about yourself, about your world, and about great ideas? Do you write to exorcise inner demons? Do you write to lay down a personal history, to examine your life more fully, to deepen your devotion to God? Do you write for the sheer joy of lex?

The maxim that “writers write” is true. I’ve always believed it to be true, but I had not thought it actually applied to me, because I hadn’t published anything until relatively recently (I’ve done some light freelance work by now). But around the time I finally started this blog just over a year ago, it dawned on me that I’ve been furiously pecking away at my keyboard, turning out hundreds and thousands of words every week. Only, I was doing it on email discussion groups, emails to friends, and emails to co-workers. When I realized what I was doing and, more, understood why I was doing it, I knew I need to be more intentional about my writing, to be more structured, and to work harder at learning through writing — not just expounding what little knowledge I had already acquired.

Julie had a similar epiphany, only it came after creating and growing her “divisive hot topic” blog. She writes:

“That really sucks the life out of a person, writing about what creates anger, constantly regurgitating some other news or blog article and throwing out opinions on already old news. The fact that what passes for news is so small and that it is only made larger by thousands of opinions piled onto it did not escape my notice.

“I changed this blog before it changed me. I decided I’d had enough of that”

And now?

“I want to put something original out there, something that a reader might take with them and think about, instead of more opinionated rehash. I want to learn to write better, to challenge myself, and not just link and deconstruct. It’s no longer enough to just get an opinion out there because every idiot has an opinion and about 90 percent of them have a blog. Every idiot has an opinion, but not every person takes the time to translate what is observed before shouting out an opinion. I want to help with the observation”

Amen, Julie

Write for Yourself

I’m not sure who I got this idea from first, maybe it was William Zinzer or (more likely) Joseph Williams, but I believe in writing for yourself as the primary and most important audience. If you write for yourself, you’ll connect with your prose in a much more visceral and passionate way. Maybe it won’t be “deathless prose” but it will be life-giving. You will be so much more present in your writing than when you are tempted to pander to an audience that doesn’t know you. It’s much harder to impress yourself, so your writing is more honest. And if you fall in love with your own writing all the better, because you’ll constantly want to improve it for the love of it. (Dirty Little Secret: Many writers enjoy re-reading their own work, not for the narcisism of it, but because they are surprised by it. These same writers, though, also find reading their own work painful, because the writing is never really finished. And neither is the writer.)

Writing for yourself is a paradoxically selfish act. By “paradoxically selfish” I mean that what looks like a self-centered or selfish behavior is actually good for others in the long run. Like, say, choosing a good spouse. Sure, it’s selfish to want a great lover, a good communicator, and someone who truly understands you. But the best part of being selfish in love (in this way, at least) is that it creates an opportunity for two people who want only the best to craft a union that can really give the best in nurting children, creating a hospitable home for guests, and contributing to the community in unexpected and joyful ways.

Writing for yourself is like that. As Julie demonstrates: instead of writing to impress others, writing to make a point, or writing to demonstrate intellectual superiority, she now writes to learn, to accent her observations, to be challenged. And the end result is something that actually does impress others, makes persuasive points, and demonstrates that Julie is head-and-shoulders above many of us when it comes to brain-power and wit.

Thanks for the lesson Julie, may we learn as well as you have.

I had been secretly glad that I’d never been tagged. And I also wondered, just how are you supposed to find out you’re on the hook?

Well. Never mind. There I was ego-surfing my blog, checking out the incoming referrers, wondering who’s linked to me lately, and there I find that Travis Johnson, fellow PneumaBlogger, has done gone and tagged me with the One Book meme.

An enterprising Ben Fernström, with way too much time on his hands, tracked down the beginnings of the One Book meme, wrote an entertaining narrative, and positioned himself as belonging to the 14th generation of this meme’s recipients.

Thus, ultimately, we have Benjamin Myers to blame for this post. I’m the 18th generation of this particular meme, but by a different route (see the note at the end).

:: sigh ::

Well, at least I’m one of the cool kids now!

So, here goes:

• One book that changed your life:
  
  Watership Down, by Richard Adams.
  
  Yes. It’s a book about furry rodents. Yes, the rabbits talk. There is prophecy, a quest for home, games, fights, puzzles and more. All in only 400+ pages. This book, though a children’s story in many respects, changed my life because it initiated me into the realm of addicted reading. I’d already read a lot as a child, sneaking books into my bedroom to read at night, but this was the first book I ever bought with saved-up lunch money from the Scholastic Books program at school. I was in the sixth grade.
  
  I still remember receiving it that day in class. It was a monster of a book — easily 20 times thicker than anything else my peers had bought. And I also still remember the first things most of my friends would say upon seeing it: “What? There’s no pictures!”
  
  First thing I did that day was go down to the school library and ask the librarian to put a protective cover on it for me. Completing that book felt like an initiation. After 400 pages, I truly felt like a reader, and I felt like I had truly entered into another realm and come out changed. I wasn’t just being entertained, I was experiencing a new reality.
  
  And for that I will ever be grateful.
• One book that you’ve read more than once:
  
  Ender’s Game, by Orson Scott Card.
  
  Card is a Mormon writer who successfully integrates his faith with his writing without ever making the work feel preachy, doctrinal, or “religious.” He is, in many respects, my writing hero, and if I ever try my hand at fiction, I hope to follow in his footsteps.
  
  I remember picking up this book off the 7-11 book rack on my way home from school one day, and buying it on impulse because I liked the cover. The fact that the cover has absolutely nothing to do with the story never occurred to me until much later. By then it was too late.
  
  Card’s ability to write a character-driven plot-line that feels like a plot-driven thriller is amazing, and forever changed my view on what good fiction is all about. His books are eminently re-readable, and the child-heroes in his story inspired me as a child and still do today.
• One book that you’d want on a desert island:
  
  Angela’s Ashes, by Frank McCourt (audiobook).
  
  Again, a book I’ve never read, but this time I listened to it. And let me tell you, even if you didn’t like the movie, you really owe it to yourself to listen to this book. It’s read by the author, Frank McCourt, and there’s just something about his Irish lilt reading his memoir that is so evocative, that you totally forget it’s a grown man telling stories about his childhood. McCourt is such a masterful storyteller that he transports you to his childhood. And his story is so touching, that, if you listen just right, even hardened men will cry.

  “When I look back on my childhood I wonder how I survived at all. It was, of course, a miserable childhood: the happy childhood is hardly worth your while. Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood.”

• One book that you wish had been written:
  
  “Psych! Fooled ya!” (Or, I only meant to illustrate the beauty of Heaven by talking about this place called Hell, which doesn’t really exist. You all should just lighten up.), by Jesus.
  
  C.S. Lewis has said that if there was any one doctrine he would rewrite in Scripture, it would be the doctrine of Hell, but he cannot, because the scriptures are plain. A debate has been raging in my post on Carlton Pearson’s universalism heresy about this issue, and it seems to be as unending as the worm that dies not. Yet, I suspect no amount of arguing is ever going to change Jesus’ actual words.
• One book you wish had never been written:
  
  The Bible.
  
  For me, this is the only possible candidate for this question. The only way the Bible could never have been written is if we didn’t need God to communicate his will through intermediaries — if, instead, he still walked with Man in the Garden, and talked with us face-to-face. Instead, Adam and Even sinned, and we feel from natural grace. I’m glad, though, he has revealed himself to us, and that we do have the Bible.
  
  But it would definitely be a better world had it never been needed.
• One book you are currently reading:
  
  On Writing Well, by William K. Zinsser.
  
  This is, apparently, a must-read for anybody who wants to write well, especially non-fiction. Zinsser is all about paring down writing so that all unnecessary, weak, irrelevant words and phrases are cut from your prose. That doesn’t mean writing has to be curt. Just that every word and phrase must serve a useful purpose.
  
  A lesson I could learn.
• One book you’ve been meaning to read:
  
  The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life In God, by Dallas Willard.
  
  Ever since I wrote a book summary for ChristianBookSummaries.com on Willard’s Renovation of the Heart, I’ve been a huge fan. I have a couple other books of his on my shelf now, waiting to be read, and this is the first on my list. Willard is brilliant, though a bit meandering in his prose. But every paragraph is worth savoring, and every paragraph promises riches more to be learned and to be changed by. He’s not always easy to read or absorb, but it’s well worth the time to try.

There, that’s it! And now … drum-roll please … I hereby nominate five others. You’re all on the hook to answer the One Book meme, and to nominate five others. The meme has already reached ’round the globe. Will you send it even further? (Yeah, like that’s possible. What are you gonna do now, tag Paul the Apostle?)

• Dan Edelen: Cerulean Sanctum
• Jim Filer: Brainwaves
• Bethany Pledge: Mentionables
• Rob Wilkerson: Miscellanies on the Gospel
• Marc Velazquez: Spudlets

Footnote:

If you’re looking for something interesting to read, Kevin Stilley over at RighteousJudgment, has done some tedious research for you and has distilled the responses of 275 recipients to come up with the top recommended books for your reading pleasure. Head on over and stand in awe of his gold-digging tendencies:

Tales from the Script — The Book Meme Revisited

If you want even more, see his compilation of the books that never got written, but should have:

Publisher’s Take Note ! Here are the books we want…

Finally, to trace the genealogy of this particular post, one simply needs to follow the links back in time to their source. If you’d like to see how we got all the way over here from Ben Myers’ blog, follow the links below. The most recent link in this chain is at the top, and the genesis is at the bottom. Enjoy!

• Travis Johnson
• Dan Ohlerking
• Ben Abu Saada
• Rich Kirkpatrick
• Mark Waltz
• Tim Stevens
• Perry Noble
• Bob Franquiz
• Michael Foster
• Drew Goodmanson
• Steve McCoy
• Garrett Craw
• John Barach
• Steven Wedgeworth
• Barbara Harvey
• Alastair Roberts
• Benjamin Myers

Here’s the link to the article:

The Problem with Evangelical Theologies
Ben Witherington III thinks there is something fundamentally weak about each branch of the movement.
Interview by Mark Galli | posted 11/09/2005 09:00 a.m.

Here’s an excerpt that is clearly relevant for Pentecostals:

So, what is the problem with evangelical theology?

It has exegetical weaknesses that are not recognized or owned up to by the various evangelical Protestant strains of theology. That’s what it boils down to.

You write that in our distinctives, we are least faithful to the Word. What do you mean?

The issue is not really with Christology, the Trinity, the virginal conception, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, or the Bible as the Word of God. The issues I’m concerned about are the distinctives of Calvinist, Arminian, dispensational, or Pentecostal theology. When they try to go some particular direction that’s specific to their theological system, that’s precisely the point in their argument at which they are exegetically weakest.

The Calvinist system links the ideas of predestination, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Each of those has its own exegetical weaknesses, especially perseverance of the saints.

But the same can be said about the distinctives of Arminian theology, especially when you start talking about having an experience of perfection in this lifetime. There are problems matching that up with what the New Testament says about perfection.

The same can be said about Pentecostal theology, with its teaching about a second, definitive work of grace, and about dispensationalism, with its teaching on pre-tribulation or mid-tribulation rapture. I show in my book that all of these evangelical theological systems are exegetically vulnerable precisely in their distinctives.

Classical Pentecostals need to think about this. One things we talk about the most in our circle is “the Pentecostal distinctive,” which is typically cited as the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues as the initial, physical evidence.” This is the Pentecostal distinctive above all others.

However, one of the “tags” we’ve long been known by, or called ourselves by at the least, has been “Full Gospel,” as a way of saying, we’re completely dependent on the Bible as God’s revealed will and plan.

In fact, at our movement’s inception, at Parham’s prompting of several adult students, the Baptism of the Spirit was experienced as a result of an intensive study of Scripture. Scripture came first, experience and doctrine came out of that.

Somewhere, we’ve lost our way.

As long as a single doctrine holds sway in our Fellowship as the single Pentecostal distinctive, we cannot be fully reliant on the Scriptures as our guide for faith, doctrine, and practice. We need to maintain our true distinctive, and that is: sola scriptura.

To get an idea of the kind of content you’ll find within this book, read the interview with Haddon Robinson titled, “Preaching That Opens Ears and Hearts.” (Sorry, that link used to be free, now it requires membership.)

Craig Brian Larson is pastor of Lake Shore Church (Assembly of God) in downtown Chicago, and is the managing editor of PreachingToday.com. He’s well-known in the world of sermon illustrations, having compiled several illustration compendia (see Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching and Teaching, volumes one and two, for example), and coauthored a guide for helping preachers add journalistic impact to their messages (see Preaching That Connects).

Though these two men compiled and edited this book, and contributed to it in a few articles, the contents were provided by the best preachers and preaching teachers in the field, covering a huge spectrum of denominations and traditions. Some of the writers you might recognize include  John Ortberg, Rick Warren, Warren Wiersbe, Alice Mathews, John Piper, and Andy Stanley—just to name a few.

If you preach or teach at all, you really owe it to your listeners to pick up this book and refer to it from time to time. It will be a resource you refer to for years, and it will challenge you at every turn. This book is truly a gift to the Church!

Rich.

Stanford U. Chi Alpha pastor Glen Davis guffawed at the news and then blogged about a book put out last year by the Assemblies of God’s Gospel Publishing House (GPH): Pentecostal Gifts and Ministries in a Postmodern Era, compiled and edited by the General Treasurer of the General Council of the A/G James K. Bridges, with some contributions from past CBC president Maurice Lednicky, and former CBC prof. Opal Reddin.

What’s laughable about this, you ask?

Just the irony of a septuagenarian and a few other retirees writing about postmodern ministry.

But, wait, is that really the case? Look at the GPH sell-copy:

For the Pentecostal movement to continue to be an effective instrument in this last day harvest, there must be a renewed emphasis upon the necessity of Spirit baptism for all believers — for out of that dynamic experience issue the supernatural gifts of the Spirit and their resultant ministry gifts. This book proclaims a challenge to return to the headwaters of this great river: Christ himself, the great Spirit baptizer and the dispenser of His gifts! Paper.

Read that carefully and you’ll see that this book could have been written back in 1952 when Brother Bridges got his start in the Texas district. The principle focus, as belied by the title, is not about postmoderns, postmodernism, or even the emergent church. It’s about spiritual gifts, which are rather timeless in their exercise and function, aren’t they? Truly, what the Apostle Paul had to say about spiritual gifts 2,000 years ago in 1 Corinthians 12–14 is just as relevant today as it was at Azusa.

If the book is true to its blurb, it’s probably about as useful a read on the spiritual gifts as any book edited by any respected and well-seasoned Pentecostal minister. We shouldn’t begrudge the authors the credibility and standing they bring to this text before reading it.

However, I suspect the titling of the book has to do as much with marketing as it does with subject matter — if not more so. Publishing houses, even at the A/G, reserve the right to assign whatever title they believe will sell. And make no mistake, GPH is a business, and it’s in the business of selling books.

You think they whiff a trend (a decade too late)? Consider: you’re the head of the division of the A/G publishing arm, and Brother Bridges wants to compile a book. He’s the treasurer, the guy who literally signs your checks. Do you say “No?” Not only should you keep your boss happy, you have a guaranteed readership. People, fellow septuagenarians no doubt, will buy the book. Yes, sir. It’s on the reading list for a course at AGTS: Ministry on the Edge: The Mission to Post-Christian America.

But slapping the “postmodern” stuff in the title? I suspect that’s just marketing. Now, I haven’t read the book, and I likely won’t, but if it doesn’t have a strong postmodern application and focus I wouldn’t be surprised. But I would be ticked off.

Not that my opinion matters.