Dilemma for the Christian Author

[Jason]

Noting the abundance of wisdom among this little forum family, I'd soliciting some advice from you all. I am currently working on a book aimed at non-believers that's tentatively titled "God and the Skeptic: A Rational Inquiry." It's part memoir (I grew up in a liberal, secular home) and part scholarly apologetics. I'm borrowing Steve G's approach with chapters arguing against God and the supernatural worldview, with alternating chapters arguing in favor of theism. Writing certain chapters from the atheist / agnostic position kind of takes the wind out of the sails of popular anti-Christian works because I've cherry picked their very best arguments (purposefully avoiding straw men) to set against my own position. I feel this respects the reader's intelligence and also reveals how lopsided the debate actually is when set up in contrasting chapters.

There are far more knowledgeable apologists out there writing books (with, you know, actual credentials), but often I've found that these works rarely meet the skeptic in a humble, accessible way. And style and humor, which skeptics tend to appreciate, are frequently absent. So I'm endeavoring to hit this niche of young, cynical, but open to debate, kind of skeptic.

So now that I've explained who the intended audience is and a general idea of the book's contents, how could I best go about getting this into their hands?

I've worked with Christian publishers in the past (Lifeway & Thomas Nelson) on projects for other people, so taking this to them is an option. However, Christian publishers do not publish books that a skeptic would read. I could blindly approach a secular publisher, but they would control the price of the book (potentially severing part of the audience with a high price) as well as the book's content. I'm not a fan of either of these options. But perhaps I'm missing some obvious advantage I haven't considered.

Another option would be to self-publish the book through Amazon, wherein I'd control both the content and the price of the book.I did this for one of my fiction titles and moved close to 70,000 ebook copies over a 3-year period. How many of those actually read the book, I have no idea. But probably a small percentage. So this method, even absent a huge marketing push, is better for actually getting the title into more hands. But this option has its downside too, if one considers this "charging for ministry."

I do not believe in charging for ministry (thanks a lot, Steve!), but I'm not sure if that's the case here or not. I could give this title away for free, as an ebook, and potentially reach a huge number of people who might benefit from the work. But there would be zero compensation for my time, and this is a fairly substantial work.

Please help me decide which publishing option makes the most sense and whether self-publishing the title would be considered charging for ministry. Thanks for reading this very long post.

[dizerner]

I'm sure you heard of lulu.com, a great resource for self-publishing? Also a forum with a lot of helpful people there... who probably know more about advertising. A sad fact that the quality of a book alone does not determine it's sales, but rather word of mouth or a well-known name. If you made an attractive book, at a reasonably low price, and got the word out there, I wouldn't be surprised if the subject matter piqued some interest. Sorry that was probably not much help.

[morbo3000]

Sounds like an interesting idea.

If you'd like, I'd enjoy being a foil to your material. I've gone the opposite direction. Raised conservative. Raging liberal. But I'm a theist, and Christ-ian.

If you haven't, you should check out John Lennox's debate with Richard Dawkins. I believe even atheists acknowledge that he beat him. I was thinking through this, and I think where he lost was that John is a philosopher of science. Very interesting. My opinion is that Dawkins lost on philosophical grounds. Which maybe raises interesting questions about exploring faith with skeptics.

http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/ ... nox-debate

I believe that getting paid for writing a book is not the same as getting paid for ministry. I understand where Steve is coming from. But it's a matter of integrity for him.. being true to what he is called to. Imitating him out of esteem is understandable... but I think that's a personal decision.

As far as publishing, if you already have a relationship with a publisher, I'd pitch it to them. They would maybe help you make a decision what to do with it. My hunch is a secular publisher wouldn't be interested, but I could be wrong. Self-publishing is always an option. But self-publisher also means self-marketer. Which is an entirely different skill-set than writing.

I look forward to hearing more about your project.

[jriccitelli]

I like your approach Jason, I understand, I have an older non believing stepson who comes from the culture I grew up in, liberal, partying, smokin, sex drugs and rock and roll, and now it is much worse, very crass, cynical, perverted, homosexual, anti-intellectual, uninformed, and even more sex. So making anything more attractive to unbelievers than all these things is going to take some strategy. Nevertheless most young people have a moment of silence where they still reflect on greater things, it's at that moment they might question the world and what they are thinking. That is why I like to pose the answers as questions, such as 'Why is it that people disagree over whether there is a God? or 'How come money never brings happiness?' etc.

If you did that as a book form, wouldn't it be nice if both believers and nonbelievers could use the book? Because a believer would then have questions to ask the unbeliever. And the unbeliever could read and ask himself the questions, or ask others, based on the book. Putting things into questions is the key to that approach, don't you think

I don't know much about publishing, but as a bible student/teacher I love the book form of questions, and answers (kind of like Socrates)

And style and humor, which skeptics tend to appreciate, are frequently absent. So I'm endeavoring to hit this niche of young, cynical, but open to debate, kind of skeptic.

We have a discussion group that is open to, and strives to do just this, reading is good, something to discuss is better, agree or disagree?

[steve]

Jason,

As you know, even though I won't sell my books, I do allow Thomas Nelson to sell them (and I realize a small royalty as well, though I would have allowed their publication even if there were no royalties offered). Having anyone sell my materials was a hard line for me to cross, but I was quite sure that, were I to publish my own books, in order to give them away, very few people would have learned of their existence—and it is certain that my Revelation book would never have become a textbook in seminaries. That book was published before there were ebooks, and some of the self-publishing options online that we have today.

In those days, getting your book into book stores was the only way for people to learn of them, and self-published books did not get into book stores (are there still book stores?). I am working on an audiobook with me reading the hell book, which I would like to post for free download. However, I have to check my contract with Thomas Nelson to see if I can do this. If everyone got a free audiobook, few would buy the hard copy, and Thomas Nelson might never recover their investment in publishing the book. I suspect they would not like that, and the seven-page, small-print contract probably forbids it.

With the new options for online publishing, it is possible that I may self-publish future books. If I were to do so, I would make the ebooks and audiobooks available for free, and suggest a donation for hard copies, to cover printing and shipping costs. If I should never receive any donations for them, or if I receive only enough to cover my own costs of printing and shipping hard copies, that would be all right with me. Given the choice between my selling ministry materials, on the one hand, and getting "a real job" in order to make materials available for free, on the other, I would definitely choose the latter.

However, as morbo3000 said, these are my personal convictions. One reason for me taking this approach is that I have a full-time ministry, and I would incur any cost to myself in order to avoid turning the ministry into any kind of business. Also, the Lord seems to provide for me through unpredictable donations, quite apart from my book royalties (a good thing, too, since I don't derive enough in royalties even to keep gas in my car).

[Jason]

I'm sure you heard of lulu.com, a great resource for self-publishing? Also a forum with a lot of helpful people there... who probably know more about advertising. A sad fact that the quality of a book alone does not determine it's sales, but rather word of mouth or a well-known name. If you made an attractive book, at a reasonably low price, and got the word out there, I wouldn't be surprised if the subject matter piqued some interest. Sorry that was probably not much help.

Yes, I'm familiar with Lulu as a print-on-demand publisher. I have used Createspace in the past, and really like them for getting paperbacks in retailers.

Sounds like an interesting idea.

If you'd like, I'd enjoy being a foil to your material. I've gone the opposite direction. Raised conservative. Raging liberal. But I'm a theist, and Christ-ian.

If you haven't, you should check out John Lennox's debate with Richard Dawkins. I believe even atheists acknowledge that he beat him. I was thinking through this, and I think where he lost was that John is a philosopher of science. Very interesting. My opinion is that Dawkins lost on philosophical grounds. Which maybe raises interesting questions about exploring faith with skeptics.

http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/ ... nox-debate

I believe that getting paid for writing a book is not the same as getting paid for ministry. I understand where Steve is coming from. But it's a matter of integrity for him.. being true to what he is called to. Imitating him out of esteem is understandable... but I think that's a personal decision.

As far as publishing, if you already have a relationship with a publisher, I'd pitch it to them. They would maybe help you make a decision what to do with it. My hunch is a secular publisher wouldn't be interested, but I could be wrong. Self-publishing is always an option. But self-publisher also means self-marketer. Which is an entirely different skill-set than writing.

I look forward to hearing more about your project.

I've actually heard the Lennox debate and really enjoy his style. Dawkins didn't have much for him, but then again, Richard's primary debate tactic is "appeal to emotion" mixed with snarky ad-hominem. I'd appreciate hearing more about your upbringing and how you came to reject conservatism without casting off a supernatural worldview.

[Jason]

If you did that as a book form, wouldn't it be nice if both believers and nonbelievers could use the book? Because a believer would then have questions to ask the unbeliever. And the unbeliever could read and ask himself the questions, or ask others, based on the book. Putting things into questions is the key to that approach, don't you think

I think questions are very powerful since they cause the skeptic to use a different part of his brain (the prefrontal cortex -- or 'rational brain', rather than the amygdala -- or 'the emotional brain'). It's also disarming and respects the other person's intelligence, thus you don't appear to be "preaching" at someone. Jesus was quite fond of asking questions.

We have a discussion group that is open to, and strives to do just this, reading is good, something to discuss is better, agree or disagree?

Well, a book should provide opportunity for discussion, so reading and asking questions are not in opposition. I'm taking an unusually balanced approach in my particular work, giving ample respect to arguments against he supernatural. Some skeptics, however, will still accuse me of "stacking the deck" in favor of Christianity, but this really can't be avoided if Christianity is, in fact, true. Its arguments will simply sound more reasonable. So my goal is not to win over the hardened skeptic, but the uncommitted skeptic sitting on the fence, who's wary of religion but not entirely biased against the supernatural. For such individuals, I'd rather provide them a few morsels to chew on, rather than preaching directly at them.

[jriccitelli]

I'd rather provide them a few morsels to chew on, rather than preaching directly at them

That is exactly what I am saying (and that is what i have been saying about preaching teachers for years), I love you
I'm sorry, you may have misunderstood, I have nothing against books, I am surrounded by books and I cannot get enough of them. I meant that a book that is easy to use for discussion is a great tool. I have been putting together bible study materials for years, someday I may put them together in a book form. Even the discussion group I mentioned has a written list of questions prepared. That is what I meant. It is good to have a book that has easy questions to ask that lead to discussion. Just as your post here has lead to discussion. This is good. Words are hard to convey in only in written form though, isn't that why the Word became incarnate?

[Jason]

I'd rather provide them a few morsels to chew on, rather than preaching directly at them

That is exactly what I am saying (and that is what i have been saying about preaching teachers for years), I love you
I'm sorry, you may have misunderstood, I have nothing against books, I am surrounded by books and I cannot get enough of them. I meant that a book that is easy to use for discussion is a great tool. I have been putting together bible study materials for years, someday I may put them together in a book form. Even the discussion group I mentioned has a written list of questions prepared. That is what I meant. It is good to have a book that has easy questions to ask that lead to discussion. Just as your post here has lead to discussion. This is good. Words are hard to convey in only in written form though, isn't that why the Word became incarnate?

We're probably cut from the same cloth. I enjoy reading about apologetics and while many of these books present cogent arguments, they tend to jump into these arguments without laying groundwork that skeptics agree with first. Proving that we all have a bias is a good starting point, as is a discussion on epistemology and basic logic. Years ago I'd read Frank Turek's tome "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist" and was so impressed that I lent the book to an agnostic coworker. My colleague promised to make notes as he read through the book and then we'd discuss his findings.

However, after a few months he'd only read the first two chapters. He told me he probably wouldn't finish because the authors seemed so arrogant and mean (his words). We Christians, especially when we know a lot of arguments, don't often see how others perceive us. So this approach of respectfully asking questions, even when we know how they'll answer, can go a long way toward fruitful discussion. The other person can actually end up doing most of the talking and yet walk away doubting their own views, just by virtue of having to articulate them out loud. Some things sound reasonable in our head but the moment we utter them the absurdity is unclothed. I learned this from Greg Koukl, who calls this the "suicide tactic." Usually, the more an uninformed skeptic talks, the more often this will occur. All you have to do is step out of the way while the argument hangs itself.

[morbo3000]

Here are some (unsolicited) thoughts on the task of apologetics.

- No matter how far I veer towards skepticism, I have seen the work that conversion to Christianity does in people. I have never seen anything like it in any other religion. Not in my own experience. Nor historically. Nor anecdotally. When I hear critical scholars (whose methods I agree with) use their findings to discredit Christianity, I wish I could plop them into the middle of a mission village. Or addicts whose lives have been changed by choosing to follow Jesus. Apologetics always winds up defending faith in-the-head. That's inadequate. Changed lives are an apologetic.

- The Big Bang. I haven't fleshed this out yet in terms of making an effective presentation. But jeez. Watch this video and see how the physicist eventually skids off the rails into complete awe at the event of the big bang. It is completely inexplicable. It is appropriate that his talk is followed up with a philosopher, because the philosophical/religious consequences of the Big Bang are monumental. Scientists were reticent to accept it, knowing that it gave theists a foothold. While Christians would quote Paul about not worshipping the creation, I think you can't go wrong describing what we know about the Big Bang, and saying, "if you won't accept any other divine force, the Big Bang deserves utter awe. And respect." I don't see how it can be anything other than divine. Our knees should buckle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLX8EYP9Ruc

- My opinion is that (post)modern apologetics needs to be nuanced about the Bible. It is not possible to support the claim that the bible is a divine document. Christianity has let itself be discredited by leaning on an inerrant text as the voice of God. You'll hear skeptics all over the interwebs claim "Christianity can't be true, because the Bible is a flawed book, and how could a perfect God communicate through an imperfect book." They are right, of course, and I give them the argument. If your faith is tied up in the divine authorship of a perfect book, all it takes is undermining the perfection, QED. But that's not the foundation of theism. Nor Christianity. The Bible testifies to the events. Imperfectly. It does its best. But the point is the events and teachings it is describing. Not the text itself.

- In this debate with Richard Dawkins, it's my opinion that John Lennox won because philosophical naturalism can't answer the bigger questions, and he understood that better. Philosophical Naturalism oversteps. And should be proven so. But the link that Atheists and Christians have made between evolution and *philosophical* naturalism has damaged Christianity's credibility. Because they incorrectly lump it together with the *methodological* naturalism necessary for scientific research. Apologetics should make this distinction.
http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/ ... nox-debate