I have many reasons to be proud of my husband, but this latest thing is just fun. He has gone and won  the 2013 Book Award for Christian fiction from Christianity Today. Came totally out of the blue. He had no idea.

Evangellyfish is a book he had a whole lot of fun writing, and if you read it, you’ll see what I mean. You can hear him chuckling in the background on most every page. In fact, I remember walking into his study a few times when he had completely cracked himself up. Love that about him!

Hat’s off to my husband the novelist! And congrats to Canon Press for having a winning book!


Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0

10 thoughts on “Evangellyfish

  1. Excellent read! I read it all in one day; I couldn’t put it down! Hope to see more from Mr. Wilson in the future:)

  2. Very fun, Nancy! Speaking of his laughing…one of Mary’s goals has been to get him to laugh when she is delivering a declamation in Rhetoric. She received kudos and enjoyed getting a laugh from “Mr. Wilson.”

  3. Mrs. Wilson,
    We have read and enjoyed many of Mr. Wilson’s non-fiction books and have always appreciated his wisdom and ability to present Christian truths in a faithful, reformed manner.
    Recently, my husband, son, parents and I read Evangellyfish. It is well written and holds the reader’s attention but, this fiction work left us all with a sense of unease. We are trying to rationalize how someone of Mr. Wilson’s position and experience could write a novel of this nature. We wonder how to evaluate the effectiveness of fiction/satire, especially when dealing with sexual sin, in order to lament, and hopefully change, the hypocrisy and brokenness of this world.
    What is he trying to achieve with this work? Who is his intended audience? If it is intended for the non-Christian reader, does this book serve to evangelize? Would it bring an unbeliever to faith and repentance? Or would it be seen as another knock on Christianity? Is it intended for Christian’s? As Reformed Christians, we know our weak and sinful condition and the possibility of sexual sin within the church comes as no surprise.
    As we understand it, novels are written for entertainment, as such, is this a fitting way to expose and properly address sin? Sensationalism and being overly descriptive (of what movie ratings used to call ‘suggestive scenes’), should not be the Christian’s method of urging repentance and change. We found phrases like “bazooms”, “free milkshake”, “her breasts comforting his ribs”, difficult to read from a ministers’ hand.
    In places Mr. Wilson seems to cheapen some of the gospel, i.e. “behold the man” and “blind lead the blind and both fell into the youth ministry” and “Uzzah should have kept his hands in his pockets” etc. We laugh because it is cutely expressed but is it right to do so? Are we reverencing God’s word when we use it to express a joke?
    We have been struggling with these questions and would love to have a better understanding of the ‘why’ of this book.

  4. We always liked him but now he’s making us laugh …again! Can’t wait to read a copy.
    Yeaa! for Canon Press.

  5. Dear Shona,

    When Doug wrote Gellyfish, he had three goals: to be dark, to be redemptive, and to be funny. Sad to say, many Christian ministers and ministries have been embroiled in sexual misconduct like that described in his book. He was trying to address this sin in a satirical way, making fun of it, while exposing the dark hypocrisy of the church at the same time. So his target audience is both the evangelical world (who need to hear it) and unbelievers (who need to see someone oppose it). The believers need to quit being stupid (like the youth group leader), and they need to quit being evil (like the pastor and his cohorts). The unbelievers hear about the sexual scandals that go on in the church, and they lump the whole church together as hypocritical. Doug wanted them to see that other Christians see it and disapprove of it. They don’t just look the other way or excuse it. He wanted the book show the unbelievers that the church is willing to go after those of its own.

    Regarding the language you asked about. As you know, our culture is obsessed with the female breast. But it’s funny how it is a no-no to really speak of it. Some women walk into a room and expect to cast a spell over everyone by their breasts which are on display for everyone to see, but if someone were to compliment them on the size of their breasts, they would be horrified. How rude! (I am not suggesting that we do this, I am merely pointing out the inconsistency. Women are very dumb in this and there’s much more that could be said here.) Doug was ridiculing both the women doing this and the men who are captivated. That is why he chose these terms. He was trying to get us to see how ridiculous this is. Some things cannot be corrected by taking it seriously. But making fun of it can get women (and men) to see how stupid they are being. Bazooms is neither a serious term nor an erotic term. It is making fun. Women who are spending big bucks to have breast implants so they can wow everyone need to see how foolish they are being. Christian women who are bouncing around with their shirts unbuttoned need to be laughed at. That would get them to button up more quickly than a sermon on modesty. They’ve heard those before. Satire is corrective ridicule. It’s purpose is to bring about change.

    So that is what is going on in Jellyfish. I hope this helps. I appreciate your questions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *