Over the years I’ve heard many people who love novels decry the lack of good, popular fiction written from an evangelical Christian perspective.  There have been some (in the last few years) written from a generic Christian perspective: Gilead and Peace Like a River come to mind as excellent examples.

But what popular novels have been written by evangelical Christians that reflect an evangelical worldview AND are well-written?

Well, of course, The Shack comes to mind.  What else?

I’m a fan of John Grisham novels; I’ve read or listened to all of them and seen all the movies based on them.  While Grisham is himself a Christian and perhaps even an evangelical, his books don’t explicitly work from that perspective.  I can detect Christian themes in them (especially justice), but they are not what I’m asking about here.  (One exception to that may be The Testament which revolves around a Christian missionary in the Amazon jungles of South America.)

Recently I was looking for something new by Grisham and came across a reference to his latest novel The Litigators (due out this week!).  But buried in and among the references to Grisham’s many novels I saw one to a book by an author I’ve never heard of–Joshua Graham.  (Look at the list of books by Grisham at Amazon.com and you’ll see one by Graham in the middle of them!  I’m not sure how that happened.)

The book by Graham is entitled Beyond Justice and it comes highly recommended by many readers and is inexpensive.  The plot sounded a lot like Grisham’s books.  I had just purchased my Kindle and Beyond Justice is only $3.95 (for a 400 plus page book!) so I downloaded it and read it on my trip to California.  I did not know it is explicitly evangelical (even “Third Wave!”) when I purchased it.  If I had known that I might not have bothered; my experiences of trying to read novels by evangelicals have been mostly disappointing.

Beyond Justice is different.  It’s gritty, raw, realistic–about crime and punishment and injustice and justice.  Graham doesn’t shy away from the language and behaviors one would encounter in a justice system dealing with murder.  I couldn’t stop reading it.  It may not be great literature or even as good as Grisham’s stuff (although I think it’s not far from it), but it is to date the best explicitly evangelical novel I have read.  And there’s no rosy ending one might expect, even though the ending is very satisfying.

Beyond justice is about sin, redemption and forgiveness.  It’s also about spiritual warfare (but not the Frank Peretti kind!).  IF you like novels about crime and justice (like Grisham’s) you will like Beyond Justice UNLESS explicitly evangelical Christian themes and events and behaviors (e.g., prayer) bother you.

What are your favorite novels written from explicitly evangelical Christian perspectives with evangelical themes?  Stick to ones that are either in print or easily accessible (e.g., from a local library).  Put your recommendations here and say a little about why you are recommending them.

Below is the link to my interview with George P. Wood, Director of Ministerial Resourcing of the Assemblies of God.

http://agtv.ag.org/meet-roger-olson

Over the past year, some of my Calvinist interlocutors here have challenged my claim that a god who unconditionally elects only some to save and saves them irresistibly, thus condemning others to eternal damnation (double predestination), is not worthy of worship because he cannot be good in any meaning of “good.”  They have often offered illustrations and analogies.  The most recent one was of a man who unconditionally pays the fines of some inmates, setting them free, but does not pay all of them even though he could.  Wouldn’t such a man be considered good for paying the fines of some inmates even if he left others to their deserved sentences?

I don’t think that analogy quite matches what Calvinists believe God does.  But let me work with it for a little bit before showing how it really doesn’t illustrate the Calvinist view.

Who would consider the man good (if this is all they know about him)?  I suspect most people would not consider him good for this action UNLESS there was some other mitigating factor that qualified the “unconditional” part.  Some people MIGHT consider the rich man good IF the inmates whose fines he paid were somehow more deserving than those whose fines he did not pay.  But that would ruin the analogy completely because Calvinists insist God’s choice of the elect is absolutely undeserving.

I suspect MOST people who hear about the rich man paying the fines of some inmates unconditionally would insist on knowing why he paid those particular inmates’ fines and not others before judging whether his action was praiseworthy.  I’m SURE the families of the inmates whose fines he did not pay would not consider his action praiseworthy (who could blame them?).  To them it would seem the epitome of unloving and unjust action because it would be arbitrary.  I think many would agree with them.  I would.

Does the fact that they ALL deserve their punishment change the estimation of the rich man’s goodness in this action?  I don’t think so–again, unless there was some reason why he paid some inmates’ fines and not others’.  Just to say “it pleased him to do it” wouldn’t satisfy most fair-minded people or people considering whether the rich man is of good (i.e., loving) character.

Let’s change the analogy a bit.  Suppose the rich man is the judge who sentenced all the inmates and has the legal authority to free them; he actually paid their fines himself!  The judge goes to the jail and unlocks all the cell doors and announces that they are all free to leave.  The only condition for leaving is opening the cell door, signing a document admitting guilt and acknowledging that someone else paid his fine.  Some inmates do it and some don’t–remaining to serve their sentences even though that is wholly unnecessary.

I think most people would consider that rich man, judge, loving and good.  SOME might say “Well, by making the inmates admit guilt and state that someone else paid their fine, the judge is making them earn their freedom.”  Few would agree.

Now, let’s go back to the original analogy.  Calvinists claim the rich man who paid the fines of some and not of others is good because he showed mercy to some and left the others to their deserved punishment.  Again, I doubt most people would think him good insofar as his choice of whose fines to free was arbitrary (as it would have to seem if it was absolutely unconditional).  BUT!  Suppose it turns out that the rich man paying SOME of the inmates’ fines (and not others) actually caused (whether directly or indirectly doesn’t matter) ALL of the inmates to commit their crimes.  Suppose it comes out in the newspaper the next day that, in fact, although all the inmates broke the law willfully, the rich man had orchestrated their actions by putting them in situations where he knew they would “freely” break the law and be arrested and put in jail.

Then suppose the rich man publishes a column in the newspaper explaining that it doesn’t matter because all of the inmates broke the law freely and therefore all deserve their punishment and he was simply merciful to some and therefore worthy of praise.  He admits that in some way he won’t explain he rendered it certain that all the inmates would “freely” break the law.  His defenders explain that these are men and women who needed his help NOT to break the law and he withheld it, but he was not obligated to help them so they are all still guilty and he is not.

This is the right analogy to what high federal Calvinists believe.  (See Against Calvinism where I prove this by quoting leading Calvinist theologians.)

Now, I ask, who would rightly consider that rich man “good?”  Few.  None should.

According to a report published by the Associate Baptist Press dated October 19, “SBC leader cites Calvinism as top challenge” in the Southern Baptist Convention.  This is hardly news; the Calvinist-non-Calvinist (really Arminian) controversy has been bubbling up among the conservatives who took over the SBC for years.

However, according to this report, based on an interview Frank Page, CEO of the SBC Executive Committee, gave to the blog SBC Today on October 18, the controversy is reaching a critical point.  The flashpoint of the controversy seems to be that many newly minted graduates of SBC seminaries are flooding into SBC pulpits without fulling revealing their Calvinism and then, after becoming pastors, are attempting to impose Calvinism on the congregations.  I know this to be true as I receive such reports from SBC people all over the South.  Page is urging pastoral candidates to reveal their theologies to search committees and congregations before accepting their calls.  And he is urging SBC churches to tell pastoral candidates what teachings they will tolerate and which they will not.  The issue, then, is informed consent.

Here are some of my reactions to this brewing Baptist brouhaha:

First, I think it is ironic and a little funny (as well as sad) that the ultra-conservatives who took over the SBC and pushed out moderates are now fighting among themselves.  I’ve predicted this ever since the take over was complete.  Fundamentalists are never satisfied to be at peace–even with their own brothers and sisters.  Fundamentalist DNA is to fight over something.  If it weren’t Calvinism versus Arminianism (even if the Arminians in this controversy aren’t calling themselves that) it would be eschatology or the gifts of the Spirit (cessationism versus charismatic belief).  Oh, come to think of it…these are also controversies among fundamentalists!

A quick caveat–I do not mean to imply that ALL SBC conservatives are fundamentalists, but some are.  And they tend to be the ones who always have to be fighting over the finer points of doctrine.

Second, I wish the Baptist Arminians would quit running from the word.  Frank Page claims he’s neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.  I heard that all the time among Baptists in the South especially.  And the only reason for it is a wrong impression of what it means to be Arminian.  As I have demonstrated in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, one can be fully and authentically Arminian and believe in inamissable grace (so-called “eternal security”).

Third, in a denomination as large and diverse as the SBC there should be plenty of room for both Calvinists and Arminians.  Historically there has been.  But many Calvinists are arguing that the SBC is “historically Calvinist.”  Really?  If you want to go back to the beginnings of the Convention in pre-Civil War days you’d find many of the founders were Calvinists who owned slaves!  So if the SBC founders should be followed in their Calvinism, why not in their racism?  In fact, the Baptist Faith & Message is worded intentionally to allow for both soteriologies.  And probably the majority of SBC leaders throughout the last century have been so-called “Calminians”–a position I think is inconsistent but at least not full blown Calvinism.

Finally, the real issue should be full disclosure by pastoral candidates and congregations seeking pastors.  Knowing how controversial it is, Calvinist pastoral candidates should be completely “up front” about their Calvinism with churches interviewing them.  And churches seeking a pastor should lay all their cards on the table, so to speak, and tell pastoral candidates what theologies they cannot tolerate.

I, for one, have no problem with Calvinist Baptist churches and Calvinist pastors in Baptist churches.  There have always been some.  The only time it becomes a problem is when Calvinists or Arminians sneak into pulpits hiding their theologies and then “come out of the closet” with them, surprising the congregation by attempting to enforce their distinctive view of God’s sovereignty on an unsuspecting and unprepared congregation.  This is happening a lot these days.  For the most part it is Calvinists doing it.  I have heard no reports of Arminians sneaking into pulpits hiding their Arminianism and then attempting to enforce it on a largely Calvinist (or “Calminian”) congregation.  So far as I know this never happens.

Within denominations that lack a clear confessional stance on God’s sovereignty in salvation, there should be tolerance and mutual respect combined with complete transparency.  This would solve most, if not all, of the controversies over this matter.

MinistryDirect.com has invited me to sit down for an interview via Skype for my new book, Against Calvinism. The interview is this Thursday (October 20) at 1:00 p.m. (Central) on MinistryDirect.com/live. If you’d like to ask questions about the book, email them to questions@ministrydirect.com, tweet them using #MinistryDirect, or type them into the Facebook interaction tool on the live page. (You have to be logged into Facebook to do the last one.) I did a previous interview with MinistryDirect.com about my book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. You can view that interview here:

http://agtv.ag.org/qa-olson.