For those Presbyterians who are following the portrayal in the popular press of the publication by Westminster John Knox of David Ray Griffin’s Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, I’d commend Bill Tammeus’ commentary “Christian Publishers, Beware” in today’s Kansas City Star. Tammeus is the Star’s Faith columnist, a Presbyterian, and a rather astute observer of religion and public life. (His Typepad blog is called Faith Matters)
Tammeus’ money quote:
But the book, which I’ve now read, does not measure up. In fact it’s just a mess. It’s a volume of spurious scholarship by an emeritus philosophy professor who says the Bush administration planned and orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks to further its goal of world domination by America.
The book’s many failings call into question the decision to publish it. Indeed, the controversy over that decision prompted the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., which oversees Westminster John Knox, to issue a statement saying the denomination does not endorse the book.
And while that’s true, it’s also true that the decision to print this poisonous book may have done damage to the idea that religious publishing houses should sponsor books by authors who offer credible, if often harsh, critiques of the world.
…
Griffin, however, tries to tie his discussion of empire in biblical times to his idea that the American empire, as he calls it, is “evil” and “even demonic.” Again, it’s scholarship indentured to serve polemical purposes.
The Bush administration deserves much criticism of its post-9/11 actions and policies. But it was a baffling error of judgment for the publishing arm of my denomination to release a volume caught up in unsubstantiated, wild-eyed accusations. It now will be more difficult for books containing legitimate critical religious scholarship to be seen as serious.
The Presbyterian Publishing Corporation continues to push this book hard. I’m not sure why, really. Its on the front of their main webpage today as their featured book. Look, I’ve spent a lot of time in the academic community. I value the free exchange of ideas, and think we really really need to protect it and even defend the existence of unpopular books of scholarship, or those that we disagree with. The light of day, the power of reason and argument, is strong enough to withstand even this screed.
So if Tammeus is right, its a shame. Religious communities, and others who are contibuting to the public discourse, should trust their ability to provide strong critique, even of books that they decide to publish. So Tammeus’ concern that “it now will be more difficult for books containing legitimate critical religious scholarship to be seen as serious” to me speaks much more about our comfort at doing the hard work of critique and differentiation between good scholarship and bad scholarship, whether it is religious scholarship or secular.
And I think that this point needs to be considered in the quite justified critiques of the PPC to publish Griffin’s loony argument. Ultimately, I’ll support this texts publication by the PPC, because the argument needs to be made to be refuted. This is their argument for why they published it: that it is scholarship that deserves a public hearing. (I’m not sure from these statements whether they think the arguments are boneheaded or spurious, or if they actually think they have good merit). The fact of the matter is that the consipracy theory is out there, and it needs to be exposed to the light of day to be debunked. I wouldn’t have decided to publish it, but ultimately I don’t mind that a publishing house sharing the name Presbyterian has done so, though it has many quite hot under the collar (and there’s a long history behind that, to be sure: see good posts here, here, here and here).
Books are books; I worry about the currency of the ideas, who holds them and what purchase they have in the wider world. I’d much rather have more books with controversial thought than fewer books with the same thought. Orthodoxy, if it is robust and rooted in the grace and truth of God, can withstand this and other texts. We might even be stronger after doing so…
What I don’t get is why the PPC is pushing this as its featured book. Its one thing to publish a text that is boneheaded. Its another to push it hard as the beacon of the publishing house’s works. That is just plain stupid.
Thanks for catching this article. There are two issues for me with this book.
Controversial scholarship is fine. The operative word here is “scholarship.” Having a Ph.D behind your name and adding footnotes does not make a scholarly publication. The documentation and the arguments are so full of holes you could fly the space shuttle through it. If a student offered this level of “scholarship” in a class I was teaching, they would have an “F” hands down. (Unless, of course, it was a creative writing class.)
The second issue is the PPC’d decision. It is a free country and Griffin is free to publish what he likes. However, the PPC is not an independent publishing company. It is a entity of the General Assembly and bears the PCUSA logo. You and I may draw organizational chart distinctions but all most folks in and outside the denomination know is that Presbyterians published the book. The PPC’s actions are imputed to the whole PCUSA because they bear the name. It is not that Griffin should have been prevented from getting his book published but rather that the PPC had no business being the ones to do it.
As to why they keep promoting it … I strongly suspect it is because the controversy is selling it. I think that was their intention all along.
I take your and Tammeus’ word for it (not having read it) that the scholarship is shoddy. I guess my point is that this in itself should make the book less dangerous; it should be obvious enough, and if not, the case can be made.
So I guess our area of disagreement is whether the PPC should have been the publishers or not. I have a fairly wide latitude, in part because I don’t know how we’d create a clear list of what they shouldn’t publish. IOW, I guess I hear essentially a call for such a list, and that worries me.
Maybe its more like obsentity: you know it when you see it. Is the editorial judgment like that? Perhaps. But beyond that, if a text might have academic merit (and I think the discussion of this 9/11 conspiracy theory does have merit, but not the theory itself), and if it has an ostensibly theological basis within the protestant christian tradition, then it is potentially a book WJK should publish.
ObPromotion: I think you’re exactly right about how controversy pumps sails.
I’m not sure about that last comment about the controversy selling it… I certainly hope that’s not the case. I sat in my church’s “Faith Forum” last Sunday morning when this book came up in a discussion. The gentleman who brought it up thinks it’s a great book, which caused me to raise some questions (he’s an older man who is well-known enough to have a lecture series at the seminary named after he and his wife, and I believe he is rather well-published himself) but there were two other women sitting at the table who work at the Presbyterian Center downtown, and they were saying that at this point they really wish that the PPC hadn’t have published it. I can see both sides of the argument, and since when have Presbyterians done a whole lot to shy away from controversy? It is unfortunate that it’s the featured book, though. Just odd…
I agree with most of what you said about this. And you are absolutely right that the creation of “a list of what we shouldn’t publish” would be a horrible idea. I also agree that controversy should not be an impediment to publishing a work.
But I still come back to the idea that the “Presbyterian” in the PPC can’t help but reflect on the PC(USA) — especially given its status as an entity of the GA. I do not think we are well served when shoddy scholarship is offered by our publishing house . . . even when this reflects a view that many Americans hold. (I have no problem with the fact that it reflects such a view, but it seems to me that there is also a responsibility that a church publishing house has that transcends simply asking if people agree with a book.)
I admit, I probably take a dim view of the whole thing, but I suspect that the PPC is pushing the book (as is the PC(USA) website) BECAUSE they have been criticized by Presbyterians for publishing it. There is a kind of arrogance that *appears* to be at work here. (And I caution — it only appears to be the case, it may or may not in fact by present.)
I’d concur that there is something arrogant, and maybe deeply cynical, about the decision making if it is indeed the case that the publishers are pushing this so hard because they know it to be divisive and controversial and thus a good money-maker. That would be the deeply unfaithful thing to me, much more so than the actual publication.
Thanks for your comment, Will…