Chic-fil-a and Homosexual Marriage

I'm probably a fool for wading into this issue. As a writer, I know putting my views out there can turn off people and make them decide not to buy my books. Yet, today, as the big push to get people to visit a Chic-fil-a restaurant to support the CEO's views on the traditional understanding of marriage, I've seen people on both sides of the fence get things wrong, not really understand the other side, much less their own position as clearly as they should.

That is not surprising, really. We tend to deal with complex issues in black and white terms. Either/or lines drawn in the sand. Most often, we talk past one another. And it doesn't help matters when it becomes the domain of political and media sound bites. People want wrong/right absolutes that are easy to grasp in a few seconds, not serious discussion of complex issues. Each side tends to look for key words and classify you in one camp or the other instead of really understanding where you are coming from, because it is intellectually easier to not have to think through what someone is saying in order to decide how to respond to them. And I know some will do this to me.

Such key words as "traditional family" which the CEO of Chic-fil-a was asked whether he believed in it, was turned into him being anti-gay. While apparently he has donated money to groups who fight for those "traditional family" values and "against gay's rights," in the actual interview which started this ruckus, the issue of homosexuality and what he thought about that never came up. It was all inferred by the media from his agreement that he supported "traditional family values." He didn't intentionally wade into the public discussion, he was responding to an interviewers question.

For whatever reason, which I wouldn't be surprised to learn that politics and reelection distractions have more to do with this coming up at this time, this simple answer to a question that many have answered positively before has become the "last straw" it seems for the homosexual community, and the media and politicians that support those activist and rights. The firestorm it created on both sides of the fence have bubbled up all sorts of statements and views. So, for the next few paragraphs, I'm probably about to alienate folks on both sides of the fence. So hang on, and see where we're at when we end this article.

First off, I'm all for equal rights for everyone, no matter their sexual orientation. A person is a person is a person, all made in God's image, and as our founding papers relate, are equal in God's eyes. God cares as much about what happens to the gay or lesbian person as he does me. No one has the right to discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation in civil rights that we all share in. Freedom of religion should mean the government can't force churches to go against their beliefs, but a person, like the CEO of Chic-fil-a, who doesn't believe in homosexual unions, cannot deny service to one or restrict their access or employment based only on sexual orientation. None of which the CEO is accused of doing.

But there's the rub, isn't it? The homosexual community sees straight people as having the "right" to get married, but not homosexuals. Therefore, they conclude, they are being discriminated against because the government grants a right to some that they withhold from the homosexual couple who love each other. Apparently, there are certain legal rights that a married partner have that a homosexual couple do not. The appearance of "civil unions" attempted to fix that, but some say it doesn't go far enough.

Why is it not enough? After all, the intent of civil union laws is to grant to a homosexual couple the same legal benefits as a married person. One would think if it was merely a matter of civil rights, the crusade should be to get more states to adopt civil unions. I mean, think about it. Does it really matter what it is called? If it accomplishes the same thing, who cares what you call it? And how much easier would it be to do that, than to get the word "marriage" redefined after hundreds and thousands of years to include spouses who are of the same sex?

On the other side of the fence, it appears many Christians are concerned that allowing the legal definition of marriage to be redefined in the states to include same-sex couples will somehow change what marriage really is. But the truth is that legal issues have squat to do with defining what marriage is. All it can do is define what the legal definition of marriage is, and what legal rules, whether for the benefit or restrictions of the marriage, apply to that definition. Giving homosexual couples the same legal rights, whether one calls them civil unions or marriage, doesn't change the reality of what marriage is. No church is required to believe differently about marriage because of state law.

"But, then the state can force us to marry homosexuals." No it can't. One, the Constitution prohibits the state from doing that. If they did, they would be singling out one belief system to persecute in favor of another. Two, if they ignored the Constitution and violated it, as is a possibility, it won't be the first time Christians have stood up to the state for their beliefs and been persecuted for it. The point being, even if the state came in at gun point or fined a church for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, the Church wouldn't have to give in an do it, but could protest. The government can make life a living hell, they can even kill you, but they can't make you believe something you don't want to. Thousands of martyrs down through the past 2000+ years can attest to that.

So the desire of homosexual couples to get "married" and the desire of Christians to prevent the "redefining of marriage" only shows the lack of understanding of what marriage is. It is the lack of that understanding that creates the problems in this discussion. Until we can agree on what marriage is, this divide will continue to grow. Or at least until we can come to an understanding of what each other really believes, can we come to respect each others views.

The secular understanding of marriage amounts to "because we love one another, want to commit ourselves solely to one another, and want to have sex that is accepted by everyone as okay." The common idea is you find someone that you fall madly in love with, you want to be their one and only (or multiple in the case of open marriages) most intimate companion for the rest of your life (or until it is no longer desirable, at least).

It is strange that while the secular heterosexual community tends to move toward ignoring marriage by having sex with whoever and whenever regardless of marital status, that the homosexual community is trying to get it. For most secular people, there is little difference between living together and being married aside from the legal issues. Once you get that piece of paper from the state that says you're married, you continue living as you have in the months before that day. So marriage for the secular person has become nothing more than a legal change of status, because nothing else changes. Not living arrangements, not sex, not emotional attachment. Only legal benefits and restrictions.

Which has led many to decide that marriage is outdated, not worth messing with. For in their understanding of marriage, and rightly so, there isn't anything more marriage adds other than some visitation rights and tax advantages but also not being able to easily exit the relationship should you so decide to do so. If you perceive marriage as mainly a social permission to have sex with each other, and you do that anyway, then the idea of marriage loses its value. Its only value left is a culturally induced idea that two people who love each other enough to have sex, should get married because it shows each other how much they love one another to legally bind them together so it isn't easy to just get up and leave. So it is ironic that as the secular society devalues marriage these days, where living together and premarital sex are the "normal" way of life instead of wrong, that homosexuals would feel it is valuable enough to fight for.

But why do Christians fight against the idea of homosexual marriage? In what way is it "redefining" marriage? Granted, most Christians do a horrible job of explaining their position on it. What it generally boils down to is the Bible is against it, labels homosexual acts as a sin, and therefore, marriage is out of the question (as if they could in some way be considered married under the Christian understanding). Instead of explaining the why, they resort to more soundbites like, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Such statements may point to a reality, but does little to enlighten anyone. Also, a lot of Christians don't really understand they why of their position. They may be able to quote Bible verses, but they never get beyond that to explain why in the Christian view of marriage, that a homosexual marriage is an impossibility. Not because of rights or equal status before God, but because it is impossible the way God has created us. So let's get to that, because it clarifies everything.

The definitive verses on what marriage is are Jesus' own words: "But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh." (Mar 10:6-8 ASV)

Yes, Jesus states that marriage is between a man and a woman because God made them male and female. But why is this important? Because, as He points out, the main point of marriage is a union between two people. And not just any union, but for the two to become "one flesh."

On the surface, this union would appear to be very abstract and "spiritual." After all, the two people still remain two people. They don't get stuck together like co-joined twins, or merge into one person. How else could they become "one flesh"? And honestly, this is where most Christians get mixed up too. They do tend to see this as some sort of mushy-wushy, wiggly-wobbly abstract concept. They would tend to view the idea of one flesh as metaphorical to describe some spiritual reality. So when it comes to the "why" it won't work for a homosexual couple, they don't have much left to say other than "God said...."

However, there is a very literal fulfillment of the two shall become one. It is called children. The sexual act is designed to create children. Whether it ever does or not isn't the issue. When a man and woman have sex, they share and mix their DNA together, in a literal way, and it has the potential to produce one flesh from the two. It is spiritual, but the spiritual is always founded in the concrete experience. Each person in the act gives of themselves to the other in a way that can create life. That reality unites them as one flesh, whether or not a child is ever realized or can be due to a physical handicap or disease.

This union is what forms the basis of the Christian understanding of marriage. Without it, you simply have no marriage. You cannot unite in that fashion unless the sexual union has that ability and potential. No matter how much you mix sperm or eggs in a homosexual act, you can never create life from that mixture or activity. It has to be a woman and a man together for that to become a real marital union. It is simply the way God designed it. And changing the law to allow for homosexual marriages will not make it a marriage.

At this point, I can hear folks bring up "what about love?" "What about the emotional bond?" Indeed, the martial union should include other types of union than merely physical. It should be an emotional union, a social union, a spiritual union, as well as a physical union. The social union is reflected in living together, getting legally married, having a public wedding either at a church or court house with witnesses. It involves a sharing of resources and time together.

There should also be an emotional union. There should be a self-sacrificing love for one another, rather than a selfish infatuation. There should be the type of love and emotional energy that wants to spend the rest of their life with that person. An emotional intimacy, where both people share their lives and meet each others emotional and romantic "I love you" needs is a key component of a healthy marriage.

That these should be there before a marriage is consummated in the physical union is the sinfulness of premarital sex. It is marrying someone before you've committed yourself to raising the children. In the Christian understanding, there is no such thing as premarital sex, because when you have sex, you are marrying that person, but to do so without having the emotional and social union in place is to treat the uniting of two people into one flesh as trivial and purely for one's own enjoyment. It is an abuse of the meaning behind the sexual act just as much as adultery is once someone has married another. Indeed, unless you do marry the first person you have sex with, subsequent sexual unions with another is tantamount to adultery. So yes, those two aspects should be present in a marriage for it to be the fullness of marriage as God intended it to be.

However, without the sexual union, what you have if only the above is present, is really good friends. Maybe very intimate friends who love each other very much. But without the uniting the two into one flesh activity of sex between a man and a woman, that is all you have. Indeed, even society can call you married legally or socially, but without that union, you are not in reality married, no matter how intimate you may be with each other. Without participating in the activity that potentially creates life from the two, there is no marital union.

What about the spiritual? That is an act of God. And as Jesus said, the fulfillment of the two becoming one flesh is the spiritual union created by God. The go hand-in-hand. That is why after focusing on the union of "flesh," Jesus then says "...what God has joined, let no man put asunder." (Mark 10:9) Therefore, when you have sex with someone, you are not only marrying them physically, but also spiritually.

What about the sacrament of marriage in the Church? This doesn't nullify that. It is a formal and concrete way with witnesses to bestow God's blessing and union of the two people. It is a part of the social union, for sure, and in the Church, at least my group, God's activity in making the two, one. However, the spiritual union isn't finalized and "consummated" until the physical union happens. If the physical does not happen, the spiritual is a union of type, but not the fullness of the marital union as God lays out. But according to Jesus, God unites the two when they become "one flesh." The spiritual union is fulfilled, and if there is no church service, the physical act still unites the two into one both physically and spiritually.

I will admit that there are Church groups who wouldn't want to go as far as I have in that last statement. Either they want to retain the right that the sacrament fully creates a spiritual union, and indeed, is the primary point of union in a marriage, and it cannot be conferred merely by having sex with someone. Catholics would especially have a problem with that, because it would put in question their whole theology of annulments. Hard to say the marriage never really happened if spiritual union can be made active by a couple having sex. And others don't want to admit that sex alone can marry a person. But this is what Jesus stated as the basis for marriage, and when God determines that He joins them together. When the two become one flesh, which happens with the sexual act that can create that one flesh, then God's activity through that sacrament of marriage unites the two into one spiritual flesh as well.

To get a clearer picture of this, keep in mind the culture in which Jesus made these statements. The marriage ceremony in His day consisted of a week-long party that culminated by the couple going into a tent to have sex, at which point they were considered married. It was such a celebration that Jesus attended with His mother when He performed His first miracle, blessing the marriage as it was in that day not only with his presence, but with his miracle of wine. They didn't have to get a certificate from the Romans. They didn't have a marriage service in the synagogue. This was the case until some point in the Byzantine empire, when the state and the Church became involved in granting and blessing marriages. But before that, the only point at which people were declared married was when they had sex. Thus, God united them at that point, because that is the primary purpose of the sexual act: to unite the two into one flesh, and so join them together. What they created on earth was joined by God in heaven.

It should be clear that this type of union can never be achieved by a homosexual couple. They can be very united emotionally, socially, legally, but it is impossible, according to the way God designed marriage, for the sexual consummation to make all the other unions a full marital union. And that's why, even if homosexuals get legal marital status, they can never be married in the full sense of the Christian understanding of marriage. Not because anyone is denying them a right to do so, but because it is biologically and spiritually impossible as God has defined it.

Of course, if you are not a Christian, none of this matters. Marriage isn't a union between two people who could create babies, it's just a union between two people who love each other. An emotional union, and that's about it. Even though best friends and people who are very intimate with each other, minus the sex, are not considered married. If it is all about getting the same legal rights as married couples, I see nothing wrong with that. But I would suggest it is easier to accomplish that with civil unions than trying to redefine what marriage means. Which is what makes me think this is more than about civil rights, otherwise you'd be fighting for that, and not trying to redefine marriage. No, this appears to be more about acceptance of a lifestyle by the population.

But there's the rub. While I would acknowledge that some people are born with a preference for certain things, like hot dogs, ice cream, or sex with the same gender, and that such people who have those preferences shouldn't be discriminated against simply because they have these desires and preferences, the existence of those desires doesn't make the activity okay. Anymore than my desire might be to have sex with a woman other than my wife makes that activity not sinful. Or any other sexual sin prohibited by God in the Scriptures. And because I probably have a propensity to desire crack, doesn't mean it would be a good thing for me to use it. The presence of a desire does not mean it needs to be fulfilled.

So I do not believe those with homosexual propensities are sinful and it is wrong to have those feelings. I do believe it is damaging to fulfill those sexual desires. But doing so, doesn't make you any more of a sinner than I am, or your sin any greater than one I've committed. That will be between you and God, not judged by me. But as St. Paul says, be careful what you approve of. Not everything is beneficial, and He has declared fulfilling those desires to not be beneficial.

This has nothing to do with hate or condemnation or discrimination, but with operating within God's design specs. If you don't believe in God, then at least you may have an understanding why it is impossible for Christians to redefine marriage within our theology to include homosexual unions. It is simply not theologically possible. To do so is to redefine one's theology to ignore the core reason God said He created marriage: to unite the two into one flesh.

Get Reality's Dawn for FREE!

Yes, for the next 5 days, you can get the Kindle version of my book, Reality's Dawn, for free. A great introduction to the series, and sets the stage for the next two adventures.

So don't wait too long and miss out! Grab a copy of it today!

What? Don't own a Kindle ereader? Have no fear, you are not left out. When you follow the preceding link, look toward the bottom-right of the screen and you'll see a link for Kindle apps that can be installed on most computers, tablets, and smartphones. Follow that link to install one on your device of choice, then get this book.

Grab, read, and enjoy. And if you would, once you've finished it, please post a review on Amazon and any other places you would like. Thank you.

Final Rift Jump 2-Question Interview

Rift Jump by Greg Mitchell

The day Michael Morrison died was the day his life began.

A sinister threat is growing in the void between realities, and Michael has been recruited to stop it. Ripped from his own violent life, he is sent rift jumping to other worlds seeking out the agents of the Dark and putting them to an end by any means necessary. The love of his life, Sara, joins him as he battles Civil War space ships, sea serpents, superpowered humans, and even his own duplicate from a parallel timeline.

But the darkness he fights is growing within him too, calling him to the same destiny as every other Michael from every other world. If he is to change his fate, he must learn to love, to forgive, to trust, and to let the man in the Stetson guide him to become the warrior of the Light he was always meant to be.



Interview with Greg Mitchell



How would you summarize your style of writing?

Cinematic. I’m a screenwriter first, so I naturally lean towards my narratives being very streamlined, fast-paced, and action-packed. But I also love to live inside a character’s head and just get their reaction to the events they find themselves in. That’s a depth of detail that I can’t do in a film, so I like that super-intimate insightful approach that only prose can offer. I like to keep things moving, though. I love action scenes. I love to blow stuff up. And then I have my characters wax philosophical about it afterwards ;)

How has Splashdown helped you to be a better writer?

Well, there are always little technical things that I pick up with every book I write. No matter how many editors I work with, I always learn something about sentence structure or verbage or what-have-you. All boring behind-the-scenes things that most Readers don’t want to know about.

What are your contact links: web sites, blogs, Facebook, Twitter links, your book's page, etc.?

I’m everywhere!

Website: http://www.thecomingevil.blogspot.com

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thecomingevil

Twitter: http://twitter.com/TCEauthor

To order Rift Jump: http://www.splashdownbooks.com/darkwater/rift-jump

Visit the following blogs on this Splashdown Blog Tour for Rift Jump by Greg Mitchell.

Grace Bridges             http://grace.splashdownbooks.com

Fred Warren                http://frederation.wordpress.com/

Caprice Hokstad         http://caprice.splashdownbooks.com

Paul Baines                 http://www.pabaines.com

Travis Perry                 http://travissbigidea.blogspot.com/

R. L. Copple               http://blog.rlcopple.com

Keven Newsome         http://www.kevennewsome.com

Kat Heckenbach         http://www.katheckenbach.com/

Ryan Grabow              http://www.egrabow.com/rm.php?e=Prime

Diane M. Graham       http://dianemgraham.com/blog/

Robynn Tolbert           http://ranunculusturtle.blogspot.com/

Frank Creed                http://blog.frankcreed.com/

I'm Interviewed at 5020genesis

I have a new interview! Melissa Finnegan asks me a few questions on her 5020genesis blog in her "Write to the Point" author interview series. Some good questions, and hopefully, some good answers that will let you in on some more info about me and the books.

Check out "Write to the Point with R. L. Copple" to not only read the interview, but to have a chance to win an ebook of my latest novel, Reality's Fire.

2-Question Interview With Greg Mitchell

Rift Jump by Greg Mitchell

The day Michael Morrison died was the day his life began.

A sinister threat is growing in the void between realities, and Michael has been recruited to stop it. Ripped from his own violent life, he is sent rift jumping to other worlds seeking out the agents of the Dark and putting them to an end by any means necessary. The love of his life, Sara, joins him as he battles Civil War space ships, sea serpents, superpowered humans, and even his own duplicate from a parallel timeline.

But the darkness he fights is growing within him too, calling him to the same destiny as every other Michael from every other world. If he is to change his fate, he must learn to love, to forgive, to trust, and to let the man in the Stetson guide him to become the warrior of the Light he was always meant to be.

Mini-Interview with Greg Mitchell

So your new book Rift Jump is about this guy that travels to parallel dimensions inside of a sheet of paper. You have got to tell me the story behind that.

Yeah, the paper thing. The seed of Rift Jump began as a dream I had one night, waaay back when I was, like, fifteen or something. I remember, distinctly, that it was about this kid (a much cooler version of my young self) who traveled the worlds in a sheet of paper. I can still see the paper in my mind’s eye. It gently rode the winds and you could see flickering images on it, like a movie was being projected on it. It fascinated me in my dream and I translated it exactly into the story. What does it all mean? Who knows. It’s just my unbound id. Draw your own conclusions about the power of simple sheets of paper to carry us to strange and wonderful worlds.

You say you had the idea for Rift Jump when you were fifteen. Have you been writing it all this time?

Not the incarnation that’s out now, no. I wrote a whole series of Rift Jump short stories on and off over the last couple decades—just for the fun of it. It was a sandbox where anything was possible and I had no rules or boundaries of logic. I just wrote whatever I felt about life at the time. I never intended anyone to read them, as I honestly never tried very hard while writing them. It wasn’t about making a professional product—they were more like journals, chronicling my journey into adulthood and my spiritual walk. It wasn’t until a year or so ago that I looked back at this long trail of weird stories and I realized there was something beautiful buried underneath all those personal ramblings. I dug all the old stories out of my desk drawer, dusted them off, and set to work to rewrite them into something that made some semblance of sense to everyone who wasn’t me. I’m very proud of the end result. It’s basically the story of my adolescence—only with a lot more monsters, gangsters, and high-flying adventure :p But, in the interest of full disclosure, that original Rift Jump story that I wrote when I was fifteen is included in an Appendix of the new book that’s out now. It’s a hoot.

Greg Mitchell can be found at:

Website: http://www.thecomingevil.blogspot.com

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thecomingevil

Twitter: http://twitter.com/TCEauthor

To order Rift Jump: http://www.splashdownbooks.com/darkwater/rift-jump









Visit the following blogs on this Splashdown Blog Tour for Rift Jump by Greg Mitchell.

Grace Bridges             http://grace.splashdownbooks.com

Fred Warren                http://frederation.wordpress.com/

Caprice Hokstad         http://caprice.splashdownbooks.com/

Paul Baines                 http://www.pabaines.com

Travis Perry                 http://travissbigidea.blogspot.com/

R. L. Copple               http://blog.rlcopple.com

Keven Newsome         http://www.kevennewsome.com

Kat Heckenbach         http://www.katheckenbach.com/

Ryan Grabow              http://www.egrabow.com/rm.php?e=Prime

Diane M. Graham       http://dianemgraham.com/blog/

Robynn Tolbert           http://ranunculusturtle.blogspot.com/

Frank Creed                http://blog.frankcreed.com/

Writing for the "Weaker Brother"

One of the tightropes Christian writers must walk is whether or not to add in such things as cussing, sexual situations, or violence into their fiction stories. And one argument of why this should be avoided is the "weaker brother" argument found in Romans 14. As evident in the comments when Mike Duran posted about this issue on his blog, Answering the "Weaker Brother" Defense, this can be a touchy subject with a lot of opinions. Which only goes to show how hard it is for the Christian writer to always remain true to his story while taking into account the audience. How does one do this?

The argument is mostly taken from the second half of the Romans 14, where St. Paul discusses that even though he believes all meat is clean, he will refrain from eating such meat considered unclean if he fears it will cause someone weak in the faith to stumble. So, it goes, authors should refrain from mentioning sexual situations in their books or cussing because it could cause someone to stumble in the faith by thinking someone they look up to has said, "It is okay," yet they don't feel believe it is.

And while there is that danger and possibility, there are several factors that mitigate against that when it comes to fiction stories. Let's consider some of these.

One, St. Paul is talking about things that would cause people to lose their faith, to sin. It is very doubtful that someone who believes cussing to be a sin, because they read a Christian book with cussing in it, is going to decide to cuss themselves. Maybe a possibility for children. One day when our oldest was in first grade, we were riding in the car, and from the back seat she said, "Hell." Both my wife and I were shocked, wondering where that came from, as we didn't cuss like that. When asked, she said, "Captain Picard says it." I watched a lot of Star Trek the Next Generation back in the 80s.

But that's just it. My daughter decided the word wasn't bad because she'd heard someone else use it and thought it was okay. She didn't sin against her conscious. And if someone is convinced that cussing is sinful, they are not likely to start cussing because they read a book by a Christian where characters cussed.

Two, St. Paul, to keep this in context, is referencing a personal discipleship level. He wasn't writing fiction. Rather, he had disciples, people that looked up to him, who had come out of pagan worship where meat offered to idols was bad. Likewise, in every church there was a certain Jewish faction, and they considered certain meats unclean. St. Paul decided that he didn't want to eat meat in front of them that they considered sinful to eat, even though he didn't, because he didn't want them to lose their salvation over it. As their spiritual leader, what he approved of could lead some to violate their own conscience.

Fiction authors are not in a discipleship relationship with their readers. If people are getting their theology and morals from any Christian fiction, they are in sad shape. Mainly because while truth can be conveyed through fiction, that is not its main purpose. Its main purpose is to entertain you. Certainly we'd hope that a Christian author would write stories in sync with their own faith, but there is no guarantee of that, and there are so many views on what is correct theology that no one will please everyone. Writers are, after all, human. Therefore not infallible or infinite in wisdom like God. Any truth picked up from a piece of fiction should be tested with the Spirit and the Word like anything else, including your pastor's sermon.

Three, St. Paul doesn't put the responsibility of not offending the weaker brother upon the producer of the meat, but upon the leader who by his support of eating meat, could persuade a brother to go against his conscious and eat when he feels it to be a sin. St. Paul's conclusion wasn't, "Because of my weaker brother, we need to burn down all the idol temples where such meat is offered." He didn't say, "Let's kill all pigs, because they are unclean and we can't eat them. So no one can."

Writers of fiction are sources of entertainment. This is something one can partake of or not as they deem fit. The "weaker brother" argument isn't directed toward the provider of the meat, but toward the one who has influence over another's life. A comparable situation to St. Paul's example as a writer would be if I wrote a book containing explicit sexual detail, but an overall plot that required it and showed the sin to be sinful and harmful in the end. A youth minister might find it a great tool to help teens who are faced with sexual sins of the same kind, but some of those teens would end up participating in sinful activities because they weren't astute enough to pick up that message, and believed the leader was endorsing such behavior by recommending the book. Assuming the leader didn't clarify what it was about that book that impressed him, and use it as a teaching tool, he could be guilty of allowing a "weaker brother" to fall into sin by recommending my book.

But, it would be upon this leader for allowing that, not the fact the author wrote it. Because that book could also save a lot of lives as well. The author may have some influence over their readers, but unless they've set themselves up in the position to be seen as disciplers, they are providing a story to the public that may help some of them. If you don't like that type of story, if it will offend you, don't read it, no matter who suggest to you that you should.

Four, and this really shouldn't have to be said, but we have to cover the bases, because an author has a fictional character in their novel sin, doesn't mean the author is approving of that sin or thinks others should go out and do the same thing. The reality is, real people sin, no matter their moral compass and beliefs. King David committed adultery and murder. Saul didn't trust in God and used sorcery to bring Samuel from the grave. King Solomon committed sexual sins and in the end, despite being one of the wiser men in the world, fell into immorality. St. Peter denied Christ. St. Paul aided in the murder of Christians purely because they were Christians. The Bible is filled with such sins.

For instance, in my most recently released book, my protagonist gets drunk at one point in the story. Am I saying that I think getting drunk is a good thing, a honorable goal, or that everyone should do it, because my character does? Of course not. I would disagree with such an interpretation or that my character getting drunk means I'm endorsing it.

Fiction writers have a duty to depict reality to a degree, to make the story real enough that people are drawn into it. But just because I have a character that commits a sin doesn't mean that I don't think it is a sin, anymore than the fact I've committed sins means I think everyone else should follow in my shoes. Bottom line, having a character sin is not an endorsement of that sin to the reader. And anyone who interprets it that way is in the wrong, not the author.

Five, St. Paul also gives the following notice at the top of this chapter: "Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him." (Rom 14:3 EMTV) That's right. St. Paul calls the weaker brother not to judge the stronger one. It is one thing for the stronger brother to blatantly approve of something he or she knows the weaker brother may be encouraged to do against their conscience. It is another for the weaker brother to judge the stronger brother in what they approve. It is wrong for me to suggest you read a book I know is full of cussing if I know you are sensitive to that and might adopt that language because you respect me. It is another for the reader to judge the author as not a Christian because one or more of their characters cuss.

With those understandings in place, we can now address how to write for the weaker brother.

One, determine who your audience is. Once you've nailed that down, you can determine the freedom you have to write your story. Each demographic will have certain expectations, and everyone has things that will "offend" them. If you're audience is the typical CBA middle-class white woman, you're going to want to avoid all cussing and descriptions of sex. Not because such is likely to cause them to sin. But because if that is your market, you'll need to conform to their expectations if you want them to buy your book and recommend it to their friends. And that isn't going to happen if it is filled with cussing. So this point has little to do with the weaker brother, and everything to do with marketing.

Two, ensure that any cussing, sex, and violence, has a very good reason for being there. If it appears at all gratuitous, it will be rejected. If it appears necessary to the plot or character, then the reader is more likely to give it to you than not. I'll usually work to figure out a good alternate route around a bad word or situation that my first draft has introduced, and only if I can't find a good and natural alternative will I leave it in.

Three, don't beat readers over the head with it. It is enough, for example, to have the character cuss here and there, but to have it in every sentence, paragraph, or even page, will be the equivalent of taking a two-by-four to their heads. And they won't put up with that for very long. Even a cussing character can be shown to be such by only showing a smattering of cuss words, and the rest alluded to. Because lots of cuss words are going to sound gratuitous to most reader's ears, and/or sound like the author is too weak to avoid using them to prop up their "evil" character.

Four, when your story has elements that you know will offend some people, make sure the blurb makes that clear. For instance, my recent book, Reality's Fire, has some more adult themed subject matter in it. I debated about how to handle it, especially since the first two books had been read by younger readers, I wanted to make sure parents had a heads up so they could read it ahead of time to determine if it is appropriate for their child. The solution was to include in the blurb an indication that it contained more mature subject matter. See if you can spot the line that gives that away:

The Day shall declare the reality revealed by fire...

Destinies are forged in the dark night of the soul. Kaylee and Nathan pursue a zombified Crystal to rescue her soul if they can. A vision of death propels their mother, Gabrielle, to chase them in order to prevent its fulfillment. Her wizard friend, Josh, accompanies her to keep his promise to protect her. A mysterious religious leader wants to seduce Kaylee to violate her morals. And a demonic being seeks to bury the reality of the ring through temptation and deceit. Through their twisting journeys, each encounters their destiny. Including the ring.

...Reality's Fire is revealed, and no soul can hide from its judgment.

You've probably noticed the sentence that gives this fact away. Granted, I had you looking for it. Others may either skim over it and not get it, or not read the blurb at all. While true, they should be reading the blurb, and that should give people a heads up that if someone is tempted to violate their morals, then there is a good chance this will contain some more adult subject matter.

I feel this is better than popping a rating on it, because that can mean many things to many people. And you have opportunity to word it in a way that says, "this book is for this type of reader..." So, if my blurb included, "...and John has to deal with his rebel sister, lost in a world of bikers and immoral living," you can expect the subject matter to be on the more raunchy level, and to likely read some cussing if the author stays true to those characters. At least they can't say they weren't warned. Oh yes, they'll likely say that anyway, but it won't be true. They only have themselves to blame if they didn't want to read such a book.

Four, ensure that sin isn't glorified. Sin can be shown to result in negative consequences, and even be neutral about it. But if the sin is shown to be okay, or even in some cases, good or excused because of circumstances, then you'll have more of a problem. Because by glorifying it, you are, as a writer, falling into promoting that sin to someone rather than just showing it as part of life, bad as it might be. In other words, when you take the novel as a whole, could one suggest that one of its themes is that getting drunk is okay, not sinful, and even desirable? I don't think my book, for example, does, even though my protagonist does get drunk. Afterward, she admits it was stupid. I never gloried it as a good thing.

As an author, you'll offend people. But St. Paul didn't write those words to prevent you from offending people. Sure, we don't want to needlessly offend people. On the other hand, neither does God expect us to write for only one audience, the weaker brother. Otherwise, those others may never experience the truth through our stories, and be left hungering and thirsting for righteousness. Whole groups of people will never be reached. And St. Paul says the weaker brother cannot judge us. They are to tend to themselves, and not be looking to who will offend them next. That tasks falls to the one who has influence in their lives, who disciples them in the faith. Not the writer. That said, the above steps can limit needless offense when your plot and characters do call for potentially offensive subject matter or actions by your characters.

Where do you draw the line for the weaker brother?