Photographers guilty of ‘discrimination’ for refusing to shoot same-sex ‘wedding’: New Mexico court | LifeSiteNews.com

Photographers guilty of ‘discrimination’ for refusing to shoot same-sex ‘wedding’: New Mexico court | LifeSiteNews.com

Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane photography, who informed the plaintiffs that she could not shoot their same-sex "commitment" ceremony.

  A New Mexico appeals court has upheld a lower court verdict that a photography studio that refused to shoot a same-sex “wedding” on religious grounds is guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination” under state law.

According to the court’s verdict, the trouble began for Elane Photography when the company was contacted by lesbian Vanessa Willock asking if they could photograph a “commitment ceremony” for Willock and her “partner.” The company, owned by Christian couple Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, responded stating that they only shoot traditional weddings, and do not do “same-sex weddings,” but thanked Willock for her interest.

The following day, Willock’s anonymous “partner” sent an email to Elane Photography stating that she was going to “marry,” without stating that the “marriage” would be between herself and a woman.  She asked if the company could travel to the location of the event, and was told that it could. 

The two emails would be used as proof that the Huguenins were discriminating against Willock in her suit against the company, and resulted in a judgment of $6,637.94 against the defendant.

Although the government of New Mexico does not recognize same-sex “marriage,” civil unions, or domestic partnerships for homosexuals, the court ruled that Elane Photography had engaged in illegal discrimination based on sexual preference under the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).

Once upon a time, we had this thing called freedom of conscience. It meant that if we thought doing a thing was wrong, no one felt they had to compel us to do it. Not even if they didn't agree with us about which things were right and which were wrong.

That was what America was founded on. In England, at one time people were required to attend the Anglican church, founded by Henry VIII because he wanted to divorce his wife, control the church, and take church property for his own use and that of his friends.  People who went to a secret Catholic mass instead were sometimes executed. Non-conforming Protestants also found themselves likely to suffer martyrdom.

That's why even though America was a highly Christian nation from the start, the Founding Fathers made sure that no one kind of Christianity could rule over the others as the Anglican church had in England. That's why we protect the Amish, the Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, and many other people that we don't agree with theologically.

It's sad to see the Leftists trying to do away with freedom of conscience in order to promote their causes. Yes, it hurts people's feelings when a photographer won't photograph their gay wedding, or their nude Wiccan wedding, but the thing about hurt feelings is, you can get over it. Losing freedom, on the other hand, is forever.

Weird Feelings about Boy Scouts upholding ban on homosexual leaders

Boy Scouts of America uphold ban on homosexual leaders | LifeSiteNews.com

In a statement issued July 17 the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) reaffirmed its longstanding policy of protecting youth by not allowing homosexuals to serve as leaders, and confirmed that the decision is final.
“After careful consideration of a resolution asking the Boy Scouts of America to reconsider its longstanding membership standards policy, today the organization affirmed its current policy, stating that it remains in the best interest of Scouting and that there will be no further action taken on the resolution,” said the organization.
The BSA policy on homosexuality states that the organization does not grant membership to those “who are open homosexuals or who would engage in a behavior that would distract from the mission of the Boy Scouts.” Please read the rest of the article at the link above.

 It's a victory, isn't it? The Boy Scouts' decision makes the Boy Scouts safe for kids from the kind of family that send their kids into the Boy Scouts--- conservative, often Christian, and supporters of traditional marriage and moral values.

On the other hand, it's kind of harsh to people trying to deal with their same-sex attraction in a Christian/chaste way. There is nothing more humiliating to be told, 'please stay away from the children'.  I've never had this happen to me in a face-to-face way, but I've feared it from the moment I realized my own same-sex attraction.

When I was a liberal it was way easier to deal with that fear. Anyone who didn't want me around their kids was a hater, pure and simple, and no one cares about the opinions of a hater.

But now that I'm back to reality I know it is in fact the people I most respect, the people most worth of respect, that are backing the Boy Scout policy. I even agree for some of the reasons for it. If the Boy Scouts were to give up their policy in the case of chaste and Christian homosexuals, might it not be impossible for them to then say no to potential scout leaders who only want involvement in scouting in order to promote a gay activist agenda?

What the gay activists seem to want is to convert all involved in Scouts to their cause. What they would get is a replacement of the current Scouts with a handful of liberal kids who'll stay in just long enough so they can say they helped change the Scouts away from being a 'hater' organization. The current Scouts will probably substitute involvement in church-based youth activity, since it will take the leftists far longer to impose a gay activist agenda on all the churches.

But, as I've said, while I uphold the protection of Boy Scouts from the Gay agenda 100%, I feel weird knowing I myself am a persona-non-grata in the scouting world because I'm honest about having same-sex attraction.

 I also worry about the kids in Boy Scouts. Some of them are gay and already know it. Gay kids, and kids who think they might be gay, are not forbidden to be scouts. But I just fear the whole controversy is not helping such kids deal with possibly being Gay in a way that's compatible with their values. Now, I'm not blaming the Boy Scouts in any way. It's more the fault of the gay activists trying to force their agenda on them. But it's still a tough life for some of us, sometimes.

Christian Fiction and Correct Theology

While there is a big difference between a Christian novel and a Christian theology textbook, I believe it is essential for the novel as well as the textbook to contain correct theology and avoid false theology. And that is one area in which some aspiring writers may be having some trouble.

Now, I am not talking here about the issue of denomination-wide allegedly flawed theology, since that is not the topic of my little apostolate/ministry. I am content when an Evangelical writer sticks to the theology his denomination says is correct, and the same with the other branches of Christianity.

The problem is that virtually every living Christian has got some of his theology wrong by the standards of his own denomination, simply because there are doctrines he has not learned/studied very intensely yet. That's because unless you are a theology professor by profession, you may not have had the time to study doctrines very fully.

Now, there are denominational differences in the way the individual believer thinks about theology. In the Catholic faith, the theology comes in a package--- we believe that Jesus Christ founded our Church, made Peter our first Pope, and divinely protected our Church from teaching wrong theology as official Church teachings even in the times of the bad popes.

On the other hand, many Protestants are not convinced that every doctrine taught by the church they now attend is correct. There are many people in Presbyterian churches, for example, who do not believe in predestination.

But I believe that no matter which church you are connected with, you ought to take the time to learn what teachings that church officially believes. I'm not saying you have to believe and accept all of them as true--- you will want to understand why these things are believed and how they connect to what's in the Bible.

The best way for many of us to improve our doctrinal knowledge is to go back to our youth and haul out that old catechism book we studied. I remember as a girl in the 4th or 5th grade, I and my younger brother went evenings to  sessions at our Presbyterian church in which we memorized the questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism.  Later in life I learned Luther's Small Catechism.  Later still, I got a second-hand copy of the Baltimore Catechism, a Catholic catechism.

A childhood catechism is a start, but there may be more grown up versions to study now. For Lutherans, there is the Book of Concord which has the two Lutheran catechisms as well as a number of Reformation-era documents. For Catholics, there is the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Some of you may go to churches where there is no official catechism. You might ask your pastor if there is some book he can recommend about basic Christian doctrines. Likely he has one or two to recommend.

You may be asking, why study a catechism or doctrine book? Why not just read the Bible? The problem is that the Bible is not organized as a doctrine book or catechism. In addition, the many denominations read the same Bible, but believe different doctrines, each thinking that their doctrine is the one taught in the Bible. Now, you may in the course of your studies conclude that your particular church is wrong about some doctrine or other, and after further study if you still think that way, you will have to decide what to do about that. But it's quite important to at least be aware of the doctrines, and the reasons for them.

How does this impact your life as a writer? A Christian novel is not a theology text, how often do you deal with doctrines? Well, in the Left Behind series, authors Jenkins and Lehaye dealt with one doctrine, that of the Rapture, almost constantly through the story. (Interestingly, that is one doctrine taught by none of the churches I've ever belonged to--- Presbyterian, Lutheran, Mormon or Catholic.) Imagine what the Left Behind series would have been like if the authors hadn't known their doctrine on this issue very well. In fact, one of the authors, Tim Lehaye, was there as the theologian, while Jenkins did the writing-work based on that theological basis.

Most Christian writers don't use enough explicit doctrine to need a full time theologian on the team. But it will help your writing career to have a better degree of knowledge about what your church teaches.

I once read about a faithful Baptist lady who, when doctrines relating to the Lord's Supper were mentioned, insisted on the doctrine of transubstantiation--- a Catholic doctrine quite different from what the Baptist church teaches. If that Baptist lady had been a writer, and if her novel had contained descriptions of the Lord's Supper in which her beliefs in this area were made plain, she would have a hard time getting published at a Baptist or Evangelical publisher (unless she made changes.)

Studying your own doctrines is also important if you have to study some other faith's doctrines as research. For example, if you are not Catholic but have a Catholic character, you might want to read some Catholic sources so you don't mess up on a doctrinal issue. But you don't want to let that study cause you to pick up some Catholic beliefs that your own church would disagree with--- at least, you don't want to do so out of ignorance of your own church's doctrine.

For Catholics: Read the whole Catholic Bible plus the Catechism in one year! There is a PDF guide that will help you do it:  http://www.chnetwork.org/readguide04.pdf You might consider, as you read the Catechism passages, looking up any Bible verse references in your Bible as you encounter them.

For Protestants/Evangelicals/Others: If you have a Bible with the 'Apocrypha'--- I have a King James Version Bible with Apocrypha on my Kindle--- you can use the very same reading guide given above.  In place of the Catholic catechism, substitute reading from your own catechism or doctrinal book. If you prefer not to read the 'Apocrypha' this time through, there are many Bible in a Year guides that you could use.
 

Christian Fiction and Correct Theology

While there is a big difference between a Christian novel and a Christian theology textbook, I believe it is essential for the novel as well as the textbook to contain correct theology and avoid false theology. And that is one area in which some aspiring writers may be having some trouble.

Now, I am not talking here about the issue of denomination-wide allegedly flawed theology, since that is not the topic of my little apostolate/ministry. I am content when an Evangelical writer sticks to the theology his denomination says is correct, and the same with the other branches of Christianity.

The problem is that virtually every living Christian has got some of his theology wrong by the standards of his own denomination, simply because there are doctrines he has not learned/studied very intensely yet. That's because unless you are a theology professor by profession, you may not have had the time to study doctrines very fully.

Now, there are denominational differences in the way the individual believer thinks about theology. In the Catholic faith, the theology comes in a package--- we believe that Jesus Christ founded our Church, made Peter our first Pope, and divinely protected our Church from teaching wrong theology as official Church teachings even in the times of the bad popes.

On the other hand, many Protestants are not convinced that every doctrine taught by the church they now attend is correct. There are many people in Presbyterian churches, for example, who do not believe in predestination.

But I believe that no matter which church you are connected with, you ought to take the time to learn what teachings that church officially believes. I'm not saying you have to believe and accept all of them as true--- you will want to understand why these things are believed and how they connect to what's in the Bible.

The best way for many of us to improve our doctrinal knowledge is to go back to our youth and haul out that old catechism book we studied. I remember as a girl in the 4th or 5th grade, I and my younger brother went evenings to  sessions at our Presbyterian church in which we memorized the questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism.  Later in life I learned Luther's Small Catechism.  Later still, I got a second-hand copy of the Baltimore Catechism, a Catholic catechism.

A childhood catechism is a start, but there may be more grown up versions to study now. For Lutherans, there is the Book of Concord which has the two Lutheran catechisms as well as a number of Reformation-era documents. For Catholics, there is the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Some of you may go to churches where there is no official catechism. You might ask your pastor if there is some book he can recommend about basic Christian doctrines. Likely he has one or two to recommend.

You may be asking, why study a catechism or doctrine book? Why not just read the Bible? The problem is that the Bible is not organized as a doctrine book or catechism. In addition, the many denominations read the same Bible, but believe different doctrines, each thinking that their doctrine is the one taught in the Bible. Now, you may in the course of your studies conclude that your particular church is wrong about some doctrine or other, and after further study if you still think that way, you will have to decide what to do about that. But it's quite important to at least be aware of the doctrines, and the reasons for them.

How does this impact your life as a writer? A Christian novel is not a theology text, how often do you deal with doctrines? Well, in the Left Behind series, authors Jenkins and Lehaye dealt with one doctrine, that of the Rapture, almost constantly through the story. (Interestingly, that is one doctrine taught by none of the churches I've ever belonged to--- Presbyterian, Lutheran, Mormon or Catholic.) Imagine what the Left Behind series would have been like if the authors hadn't known their doctrine on this issue very well. In fact, one of the authors, Tim Lehaye, was there as the theologian, while Jenkins did the writing-work based on that theological basis.

Most Christian writers don't use enough explicit doctrine to need a full time theologian on the team. But it will help your writing career to have a better degree of knowledge about what your church teaches.

I once read about a faithful Baptist lady who, when doctrines relating to the Lord's Supper were mentioned, insisted on the doctrine of transubstantiation--- a Catholic doctrine quite different from what the Baptist church teaches. If that Baptist lady had been a writer, and if her novel had contained descriptions of the Lord's Supper in which her beliefs in this area were made plain, she would have a hard time getting published at a Baptist or Evangelical publisher (unless she made changes.)

Studying your own doctrines is also important if you have to study some other faith's doctrines as research. For example, if you are not Catholic but have a Catholic character, you might want to read some Catholic sources so you don't mess up on a doctrinal issue. But you don't want to let that study cause you to pick up some Catholic beliefs that your own church would disagree with--- at least, you don't want to do so out of ignorance of your own church's doctrine.

For Catholics: Read the whole Catholic Bible plus the Catechism in one year! There is a PDF guide that will help you do it:  http://www.chnetwork.org/readguide04.pdf You might consider, as you read the Catechism passages, looking up any Bible verse references in your Bible as you encounter them.

For Protestants/Evangelicals/Others: If you have a Bible with the 'Apocrypha'--- I have a King James Version Bible with Apocrypha on my Kindle--- you can use the very same reading guide given above.  In place of the Catholic catechism, substitute reading from your own catechism or doctrinal book. If you prefer not to read the 'Apocrypha' this time through, there are many Bible in a Year guides that you could use.
 

Rainbow Lily images

The rainbow lily is the symbol of chastity for same-sex attracted/Gay/Lesbian people.  Here is one I drew, in several sizes. You may use it however you like, no back link is required. (I am hoping to get some rainbow lilies done by people with art skills sometime soon.)

Small rainbow lily

Rainbow lily icon

 

Large rainbow lily

Choking on the Gay Pride Oreo

Kraft defends rainbow-stuffed gay pride Oreo as ‘reflection of our values’ | LifeSiteNews.com

Kraft Foods, the company behind the Oreo cookie, has defended a promotional image of the cookie stuffed with rainbow filling as “a fun reflection of our values,” even as the gay rights endorsement triggered boycott threats within hours of appearing on the Internet.
The Photoshopped image of “America’s favorite cookie” caused a stir on the brand’s Facebook page Monday evening when it appeared with the caption, “Proudly support love!”

The image had garnered nearly 220,000 Facebook “likes” by Wednesday morning, 66,600 shares, and 35,850 comments fueling an unending flame war over the cookie’s stand in favor of the homosexual movement. Read the rest of the story at the link above.

My reaction: It's painful. Another example of how the left-wing pro-gay-marriage, anti-Christian entity known as the Gay Pride movement is presented as representing all Gay/Lesbian people regardless of their actual point of view.  One more place in which Christian (and other) people with same-sex attraction who are living chaste/celibate lives and supporting traditional marriage and religious freedom are pushed into invisibility. We don't need to have the right to speak for ourselves, we have all these leftist Gay Pride people (who hate us) to speak for us.

The fact is, supporting the Gay Marriage movement is supporting people who are demonizing those faithful branches of Christianity who cannot perform Gay Marriages because of their correct theology. You cannot support religious freedom and insist on state-recognized Gay marriage.  Since no one is stopping gay couples from having private commitment ceremonies, and since gay couple tend to receive benefits similar to married couples without even that commitment ceremony, the only reason to push for official Gay Marriage is to force everyone to agree with them that Gay marriage, and Gay sex, are OK. Not sinful at all. And if freedom of religion protects those who say otherwise, away with freedom of religion!

Rainbow Lily: symbol of Gay/Lesbian chastity

 NOTE: this rainbow lily is one I found on the internet. I could really use some images made by people who support Gay/Lesbian chastity. So if you know how to draw/Photoshop.....

Are Nuns Allowed to Drop Pianos on Zombies?

One of the many serious questions raised by the movie 'Zombieland'. Are nuns--- and women religious in general--- allowed to drop pianos on zombies?

 Now, the Sister Cynthia Knickerbocker depicted in the clip is clearly not a nun--- a cloistered woman religious--- because she's out of uniform. A cloistered nun has to remain within the enclosure unless she has her superior's permission to leave. Though not intended for zombie protection, I'd imagine those enclosures are pretty zombie-proof. So for the cloistered nun the issue would be this: would she have any zombies to kill within the convent?

 The kind of religious sisters that teach in schools or nurse in hospitals, and who these days often don't wear habits, are perfectly free to leave the convent grounds. But are they allowed to kill zombies once they get there? Catholics, in and out of convents, are required to respect human life from conception until natural death. Zombies have already been through their natural death, that's true. But Lazarus in the Bible died, was in the tomb awhile, and Jesus raised him. I don't think it would have been OK for some one to kill Lazarus based on the fact that he was already dead once.

The question is whether the apparent life of the zombie is human life. If it is not--- if the soul of the person has fully departed and the corpse is just walking around, animated by a virus, an alien entity, an evil spirit, or whatever, killing--- or re-killing--- is justified. Zombies are just a pest, like plague rats, that we can kill for the safety of others.

 The problem is, how do you prove the soul has left? How do you know that the zombified person isn't just suffering from brain damage which left him violent? And how does that research get done in the middle of a zombie apocalypse? Without that proof, Catholics, whether or not they are consecrated religious, can't just kill zombies because they are zombies. Each zombie kill has to be, individually, a self-defense situation. Of course, with zombies, most situations quickly degenerate into legit self-defense situations. But piano-dropping? That's premeditated, that's trapping a Z before you are sure he's out to kill you. Sister Cynthia Knickerbocker's probably gonna have to say three Hail Marys or something.

Our Mormon Friends and the 'Kingdom of the Cults' Approach

Joseph Smith

Last Sunday evening I was watching the John Ankerberg television show. The topic was the Mormon faith. And I was sad to see that the show followed what I like to call the 'Kingdom of the Cults' approach to dealing with our Mormon friends.

The Kingdom of the Cults is an old Evangelical book which explores four Christian/Christ-inspired churches that the authors deem to have gone so far doctrinally astray that, in the opinion of the authors, they are now outside Christianity. These 'cults' are Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Christian Science followers. (The more up-to-date book adds many more.)

The book tended to throw out every reason possible that the Evangelical would reject these churches--- their doctrines, their alleged former doctrines, supposed scandals involving their founders and early leadership, and so on.

The problem I had with the approach is that I doubt very much that any person in one of these 'cults' picked up the book, they would read it and not become enlightened, but angry or sad that the picture given of their faith was so far outside their current experience of it.

Also, the Evangelical reading the book might get the idea that the only thing a real Christian might have to say to a member of these four churches is a list of the reasons why their church is wrong. I don't think people ever leave a church with bad doctrines because some one argues them out of it. They leave when they find something better and more correct, and they won't see that better and more correct something if the people attached to it don't show Christian love.

My experience with the Ankerberg show was more interesting since early on that same day, I had watched some Mormon programming on the BYU channel, both a program about the Old Testament and one about Mormon history. I have also had experience with the LDS faith much earlier in my life. During the years when I was a neopagan, I briefly explored the LDS faith, among others. I honestly believe that the LDS church that LDS believers are experiencing does not have much in common with the bizarre culty version of it the Ankerberg show was describing.

Interestingly, the one doctrine given that defined the Mormon church as not Christian was their failure to believe in the doctrine that is sometimes called 'Sola Scriptura'--- the Bible alone. The Catholic church also does not believe that doctrine, which emerged during the Protestant Reformation.

Although I believe that correct doctrine is very important, the fact is that the followers of Jesus Christ today don't happen to agree on what correct doctrine is. So when I see someone who is following Jesus Christ and doing good works in His name, I will not withhold Christian fellowship from them or pick doctrinal quarrels with them. I feel like the first step in any sort of evangelism or outreach is showing Christian love, anyway.

The LDS church is bound to be a hot topic among Christians and others--- however you define Christians and others--- until Election Day. What do you think the end results of that discussion will be?

DeCompose: Stephen King Breaks the Rules!

DeCompose: Stephen King Breaks the Rules!

Mike Duran over at the Decompose blog writes:

"I’m about 250 pages into “The Stand” and thus far one of the takeaways, to my shame, has been how often I’ve noticed King violates some of the most basic writing rules. Namely in his use of passives and head-hopping. Lots of jumping from one POV to the next in the same chapter. And then there’s the “had been’s” and “was’s.” This book would drive some of my old mentors crazy.

More importantly, however, King’s infractions haven’t kept me from enjoying the story. That’s the weird thing about it.

Like many writers, I spent the first couple of years learning about the rules. Show don’t tell. Avoid passives. Maintain POV. Stuff like that. I took it as gospel and worked darned hard to apply it. Now, some six or seven years later, I’m trying to unlearn them. If my reading of The Stand is any indication, I’ve got a long way to go. It feels like a bad hangover — only time and abstinence will cure it." Follow the link above to read the rest.

This blog post made me think about the rules that neophyte writers like to impose upon one another. One time I attended one meeting of a writers' group at my local library. The ladies of the group were all about the age I am now, so at the time they seemed older than dirt. One lady shared copies of a vignette she wrote. In one sentence she piled up 4 adjectives to describe a couple she once knew. After failing to convince her to remove one or more of the adjectives--- they were all true, she insisted--- I came up with the suggestion that she rewrite the string from 'they were loving, happy, devout and athletic' to 'they were loving and happy, devout and athletic'.

I thought the rhythm of my version was slightly better. But all of the ladies bristled. "That would be using 'and' too much!" they chorused. And I realized that though I had never heard of the anti-and rule, it was for them a major rule of good writing.

The other writing rules I hear a lot of are rules like the and rule and the no head-hopping rule. They are things that are very easily measured.

While the rule I was going by was something I learned the way I tend to learn rules--- it was a generalization based on years of reading books during every waking moment when I could get by with it. The rule was that the words of your writing should have an appropriate rhythm.

The problem with a rule like that is that it isn't as easy to explain that rule to a beginning writer. What do you mean by rhythm? What rhythm is appropriate to what writing situation? How good or bad is my rhythm, right now?

My rhythm rule isn't an on/off rule, either. Beginning writers and their teachers tend to like on/off rules. Either a story uses head-hopping or it doesn't. But my rhythm rule? There are an almost infinite number of levels of good, better, even better than, and best, as well as bad and worse than bad. And people will not agree on where a given sentence falls, or on when a dissonant or even clunky rhythm is being used well to achieve a desired effect.

I think somewhere within most beginning writers there is a feeling that if they learn to follow their full set of simplistic on/off rules completely, they will have achieved writing gold. That's not true. You can write the worse prose imaginable without breaking a single one of those rules.

The rules that really count are the more complex, difficult to explain, and difficult to follow rules. They are best discovered as I did, by reading a great number of books by people who know how to write well.

When you discover one of these rules, you may be assured of this--- nothing you ever write will follow the rule perfectly. In addition, the rule you find most important may be a rule another writer doesn't even count as a rule. But the end result of following rules like mine is writing that is more compelling to the reader.

Planning July 2012 Writing Month/Wrapping up June

Planning things. Setting goals. Fulfilling those plans. Meeting those goals. Not what I am good at.

At the beginning of this month, having heard about Camp NaNoWriMo--- a version of the National Novel Writing Month which takes place in June and August--- I decided to participate with a novel idea I named Zombie Dawn. To keep me on goal, I designed a chart for the month where I had space to fill in my accomplishments for up to three writing sessions a day, as well as a running total and my daily word count goals.

Now the month is nearly over. I am 91% of the way to the goal. I think I will make 50k for the month with no great problem.

I've learned a few things about myself as a writer. I've found that I'm a pantser--- a seat-of-the-pants writer--- more than a planner/outliner. I've found I do best with a longer writing stint in the morning than other times of day. I've discovered that timed writing stints--- with timed 10 minute breaks--- work very well for me.

So--- moving forward to July. While my word goal for this month will be met, my novel's first draft will not be finished. Especially since I have three chapters of false start that I'll have to throw out at some point. So my main goal is to finish Zombie Dawn. I'll draw up a new monthly chart. My daily writing goal I'll keep at the same NaNo level of 1667 words a day. With timed writing, I don't have much trouble doing 3334 a day--- twice the NaNo minimum.

The last week of July, I'll also be preparing for my August writing project--- participating in the August Camp NaNoWriMo with a novel project called 'The Gumiho's Wife'. It will use the Asian mythological creature known as gumiho in Korean and kitsune in Japanese--- a shape-shifter which can exist as a man/woman or in fox form. I hope to get a few character sketches and plot ideas written out before August 1.

So--- what did you learn during your June writing month? Have you set new goals and met them? Have you surprised yourself? And what about July? Are you going to do JulNoWriMo? Do you have a project in progress? Have you set goals? Discovered ways to chart your progress to the goals that inspire you?

I know a lot of times when I read about goals other writers were setting for themselves, I felt I couldn't compete. I let it get me down. But don't get discouraged. When I started out this June, I had a hard time writing more than a thousand words in a session. A few days, I wrote less than that. I was behind on my word count goal most of the month. But then I discovered timed writing--- I blogged about doing a 3/30/10 writing day--- three sessions of 30 minutes, with ten minutes of break time between each session. I didn't have any luck doing a second 3/30/10 session in a day. So I tried a 5/30/10 morning writing session. Today when I did that, I totalled 3895 words.


You may start out having a hard time doing 500 words a day. You may find that the timed writing sessions that work for me don't work for you. But keep trying. You've got something to say, whether you know it or not, and if you don't give up, you will find better ways to get it out.

Starting your Novel out 'Too Catholic'

On today's episode of EWTN Bookmark, Catholic novelist Marcus Grodi suggested that the reason many Catholic novels don't have many non-Catholic readers is that they start out 'too Catholic'. That is, they throw out too many specifically Catholic things at the beginning, which can be off-putting or mystifying to the non-Catholic Christian reader.

It occurred to me that this idea has a more general writing application. I remember one time my sister-in-law, who was raised in an Assemblies of God church, told me about something they were doing that seemed a bit odd to me--- not like something I'd seen in churches I'd ever attended. I can't remember exactly what it was, so let's use the hypothetical example of speaking in tongues, which seems to be a routine part of the Assemblies of God Sunday worship service.

Imagine if a writer from an Assemblies of God background started off his novel with a typical example of someone speaking in tongues at Sunday worship. Many Christians, both Protestant/Evangelical and Catholic, would be put off by that scene. We don't do that at our Sunday service!

The same would go if an LDS writer started off a novel writing about temple ordinances, or a Catholic started off with Eucharistic adoration. It would put off readers from other faith backgrounds who don't do that sort of thing.

This doesn't mean that one has to write something bland and generic that doesn't touch anything that Christians don't agree on. Marcus Grodi's own novel, Pillar and Bulwark, is about a Congregational minister whose life is turned upside down when he begins to believe that the Catholic Church might have the truth on its side--- a story that is bound to have some Catholic content.

The idea, I think, is to start off with some common ground. If you are seeking a general Christian audience, start off your story with content that Christians in general can identify with, rather than with things that are denominationally specific. Later in the story, when the reader has gotten to know the characters involved, things specific to one denomination or Christian group can be introduced without as much risk of alienating the reader.

Of course, you can't always do that. The Left Behind series by Tim Lehaye and Jerry B. Jenkins has a plot specifically centered around a controversial doctrine--- the pre-tribulation Rapture--- that not all Christians share. Not even all Evangelical Christians share it. And since the story-action doesn't start until the Rapture hits, this non-universal doctrine has to be introduced very early in the novel. And it didn't work out all that badly for Lehaye and Jenkins. They won over a lot of readers who did not believe in the pre-tribulation Rapture. I became a loyal fan myself, even though I was a Norse Pagan at the time.

Another thing I might suggest, along the line of handling specific denominational doctrines in Christian fiction, is that the writer needs to trust in the Holy Spirit. You do not need to bore your reader with  a list of proof-texts or compelling arguments for every doctrine you mention in passing. You don't need to waste time defending against the doctrines you think are false. You can handle these things with a very light touch and let the Holy Spirit do the heavy lifting in the reader's heart.

On an even broader level, the Christian writer with an ambition to evangelize non-believers would start out with things that are common to us all, whether we are religious or non-religious, Christian or pagan. And then, gently, as the story progresses, gently introduce a bit of Christian content.

Of course, there are some writers that do the exact opposite. They throw out the very specific parts of their denomination, religion, or world-view from page one. While this alienates many readers, it may be a way to gain an intense following among readers who share your views. If you, as a writer, realize that you are sacrificing readers by taking an intense Catholic/Baptist/Lutheran/Marxist-atheist approach from day one, and you are OK with that, go ahead and write for the audience you want to write for.

Question: when you read an author whose faith differs from your own, have you ever been put off by too much 'difference' too soon in the story? 

SYZYGY Book Trailer (Books have Trailers now, Who Knew?)

My writing friend Amanda Borenstadt has a book trailer out for her novel, Syzygy. I've read the book and it was worth every penny I paid for it. OK, Amanda gave me a free review copy, but it would have been worth every penny I paid for it if I'd paid for it.

To get to know Amanda better, you can visit her two blogs. One is called A Fortnight of Mustard and has won awards as one of the top condiment-related blogs in the galaxy. The other one is called something else, and is about the Catholic faith. (FYI, Catholics are Christians. If you don't believe me, you could look it up.)

Here is an official description of the plot of Syzygy which I stole from somewhere:

When the leader of Finn's clan orders him to kidnap Bea Jones, Finn falls crazy in love. He risks his life by betraying his clan to protect her. Finn Wilde is a computer-nerd trapped in a super strong body. He's one of the Fir Na Gealaí, whose strength and speed surpass those of ordinary men. The story is told by an alternately pensive then manic patient in a mental hospital. http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/21501

Note: the word 'syzygy' is a real word. If you use it playing hangman, you will probably win. Unless you are playing against Amanda Borenstadt.

Another Note: Amanda Borenstadt swears she is not Mr. Spock's mother.

Having a 3/30/10 Writing Day

Chris Baty, founder of National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo), wrote a book called No Plot? No Problem!: A Low-Stress, High-Velocity Guide to Writing a Novel in 30 Days.

In the chapter dealing with the third week of a writing month, he teaches the 3/30/10 technique--- he calls it 'the jet-pack under your seat.

This is how you do it:

• Set a timer for 30 minutes. Write like mad.
• Take a ten minute break for stretching, complaining, folding clothes... whatever you can get done in ten minutes.
• Set the timer for another 30 minutes. Write. Take another ten minute break.
• Do another 30 minutes, then do something fun.

Baty recommends doing the 3/30/10 3 times on a free day--- morning, noon and evening. This rapidly adds to your word count.

I have not done this 3 times a day--- or even two. But timed writing works for me. The first time, my three 30 minute sessions racked up the following word counts: 579-552-628. And the second time: 465-681-791. Each time I reached my daily word count goal by the end of the three 30 minute sessions.

Don't fail to meet your word count goal!

Before I tried this, I had a hard time meeting the writing goal in one session. This way works for me. It's a bit hard on the wrists, but I think I'm adapting.

I'm thinking of trying for another 3/30/10 session today. If I don't, I at least hope to have a mini-writing session where I dip back in to my session for at least 10 minutes.

I think one reason this works for me is that I have a thing about timers. I use a timer every time I brew a cup of tea. It's silly, but it sure makes the tea come out consistently. And I never wander off and forget the steeping tea until hours later. It may be just a part of my Asperger Syndrome weirdness, but timed writing sessions work for me.

How about you? Have you ever done the 3/30/10? Or have you tried some similar timed writing method? Does it work for you?