However, in answer to your statement that the debate is based more on our “religiousness” than on literary criticism, I’d say that my original review at least wasn’t meant to look at the book as a self-standing piece of literature, but to look at it as it relates to truth as revealed in the scripture. I don’t have any problem with symbolism regarding Jesus’ blood any more than I do with crosses on church walls — I take communion and worship Christ as “the Lamb of God,” acts that involve heavy symbolism.

Where I take issue with a symbol in literature is where I feel it may obscure or even twist truth rather than shedding greater light on it. But I do realize that I’m a subjective reader like all the rest of us, so other readers may (and I hope they do) find Eric’s symbolism more revealing than obscuring.

That said, I believe Christian authors and artists of any kind must see their creative work as fitting into the greater tapestry of God’s work — creation, salvation, and continuing on — and as people who claim to hold truth, should be careful in the way we portray it. I don’t believe in the absolute autonomy of art.

I think the book is successful in that it does stir up the things in us that cause us to put Christianity in our nice neat little packages. We don’t like symbolism in regards to the blood of Christ, but yet, we put crosses in our churches. I think that is heavy irony.

I think the book takes us to more truths than we realize as far as that goes, and our comments about these things only proves it.

Strangely, my non-Christian readers never seem to have a problem with metaphor and allegory. I’m not sure why that is, but of course C.S. Lewis and his centaurs and dryads would probably face some serious complaints in the CBA market these days, if we didn’t already know of him.

Eric, you said, “Our salvation comes through that alone (which makes me wonder why you and others had a problem with the “just one drop” part).” Actually, the idea that just one drop is enough was never a problem for me. I agree that Christ’s blood is that powerful.

I think what it comes down to is that as a reader (read: from a subjective standpoint), I didn’t think the allegorical element in “drinking Christ’s blood” pointed clearly enough to the reality behind it. In other words, “just one drop” wasn’t a problem for me; “just drink” was. What came through to me was a message that “you can get saved by drinking blood and then working really, really hard forever after at dying to yourself.” The reality of who Christ is, how grace and faith work, and WHY His blood is efficacious didn’t come through, and I’m not sure that nonchristians would understand that drinking blood is an allegory or how they can apply that in their own lives.

However, I have a feeling that this message might come through much more clearly in the trilogy as a whole.

Eric, I will be giving a lot more thought to the role of blood in salvation, communion, and Jesus’ words re: drinking His blood. Thanks for inspiring deeper thought on these very important issues .

I don’t want to sidetrack the conversation, but I love what you said here. Salvation is the beginning of our walk with Jesus, not the destination. I do wish more books, churches, Christians, Christian media, would point this out. Punching our ticket to heaven is not the end, it’s the beginning of a journey.

I understand what you’re trying to say, that our salvation comes through Jesus’ sacrifice alone, not our own. I agree. Jesus died for us. He alone could pay that price. Our salvation comes through that alone (which makes me wonder why you and others had a problem with the “just one drop” part).

But…after that act of faith and salvation, we must work out our salvation, not by any goodness on our own part, but as a continual dealing with our fleshly natures. We are told to “take up our cross daily and follow” Jesus. We are to our sins and alive in Christ, yet we all struggle with sin each day. This is why we must die daily. Not to earn salvation, but to keep lines of communication open between us and our Savior. I think it’s wrong to present to new believers the idea that if they just accept Jesus into their hearts everything will be hunky-dory. The honeymoon ends and then the reality sets in that we still have natures that try to rise up in us. The already-present disease of sin is in our veins, and as believers we are cleansed of its affects, unless, as in the book, we give the enemy an opening.

Even in my marriage (19 years now), my wife and I must die to our own desires daily. We are committed to each other. We are in love. None of that is in question. But we must work out that relationship on a daily basis, out of a desire to truly be one. That’s how I feel in my walk with the Lord. I don’t die daily to earn anything, but to be in communion with Him.

So first of all, may I say that I appreciate your missional stance a great deal? I don’t question your heart, and I’m not surprised to hear that readers have been positively affected by your work. If the Holy Spirit is alive and working in you, then He’s going to use you, and I praise Him for that .

I do still feel the way I feel about the presentation of salvation in this book (and again, as I’ve said elsewhere, this is the only one I’ve read — so I don’t have the whole picture).

So if I may respond to a couple of your comments specifically:

“For me, as is shown in the books, the power of salvation, healing, and protection in Jesus’ blood is a daily reality. It’s not a symbol. It’s the real thing. Jesus told His disciples to drink His blood, and many left because of it.”

Yes, the power of salvation is in the blood. But what did Jesus mean when He told us to drink it? In the book, Gina literally drinks it to be saved — but no reader will ever be able to do the same thing. The apostles didn’t drink Jesus’ blood; Paul didn’t; you didn’t when you got saved. You put your faith in it, and I believe that’s what Jesus meant by the phrase.

That’s where the blood felt more like a talisman than like a biblical reality to me. If the book was set in a fantasy world, I probably wouldn’t have the same problem; the allegorical element would be clear. But because the book is set in this world, I found the lines between allegory and non-allegory muddied. (Becky Miller has blogged more about this.)

So yes, in this the depiction of Christ felt pagan to me — more like a fountain of eternal youth than like faith in the Living God I know. That said, I’m very, very glad you’ve stopped by to give us an inside look at your work, just as I’m glad for all the commenters who’ve argued with me. I don’t want my readers to only get my viewpoint on this!

The second comment I wanted to respond to is this:

“There is very real power in the sacrifice that Jesus made on the Cross, and that’s what is being pointed out in the story. I didn’t want it to be just a crucifix, as in the original vampire mythos, but the real, active, healing blood of our Savior. I try to make it clear throughout that it takes only one drop of that Blood, but it’s a day by day decision, a dying to one’s fleshly nature.”

Now, here I realize that probably 70% of evangelical Christians are going to disagree with me, so it’s my turn to be highly controversial . (Also, I made that statistic up on the spot.) When in “Haunt of Jackals” the nature of salvation was clarified, it was in the way you describe here: as “a day by day decision, a dying to one’s fleshly nature.” I actually vehemently disagree with that description of what it takes to be saved, and even though so many sincere (and godly!) Christians believe it, I think it’s another pagan idea that’s snuck into the church.

Do we have to sometimes “die to ourselves” to follow God? Yup, because He leads down difficult paths. Peter died to himself on the cross. Paul died to himself when he got his head chopped off, and also when he was beaten (nearly) to death, nearly drowned, nearly frozen, all those things. But salvation isn’t won by our death to ourselves. It’s won through Christ’s death for us. Peter and Paul and the other apostles died to themselves after they’d been saved purely by faith in an act they had nothing to do with.

The idea that we are saved by dying to our fleshly natures every day is, I think, not a Christian idea. But again, I recognize that many (most?) Christians will disagree with me on this. Thanks for pushing me to take this conversation to another level. And again, thank you, very much, for coming by and adding to the conversation.

I don’t believe in icons, talismans, or such. I do believe, though, that there is very real power in the sacrifice that Jesus made on the Cross, and that’s what is being pointed out in the story. I didn’t want it to be just a crucifix, as in the original vampire mythos, but the real, active, healing blood of our Savior. I try to make it clear throughout that it takes only one drop of that Blood, but it’s a day by day decision, a dying to one’s fleshly nature. When Gina finally makes that decision, she admits that she can’t do it on her own strength or good works, that she is not good, and there is only one who could pay that price.

As for the “anti-establishment” angle, I am writing to reach those outside the fold, as it were, and they have many objections against organized religion. I was not trying to wave a flag for a certain camp, so much as to underline the truth of what church truly is: a gathering of Those Who Resist, two or three gathered in the Nazarene’s name, being a body not lone rangers.

Please keep the dialogue going on all this, but I ask you, as a brother in the Lord, to not make rash judgments about this story being “pagan” and such. Please look at the story’s unveiling of the Master Collector’s schemes and the true healing and salvation in the Nazarene Blood before tossing it all out. In my own fallible way, flawed as it may be, I do believe there are deep truths from the Bible in this trilogy, and I’ve had some amazing emails from readers reflecting the changes it’s done in their hearts and minds already.

I know Jesus personally. I love Him. When we see Cal reflect on meeting Jesus outside the tombs, I cried as I wrote it, because I want to be a man who is called by Him to help carry the weight of those around me, to point them to the only One who can save, and to the power in His Blood.