Comments on: Tammeus on Griffin’s 9/11 conspiracy theory…

By: kairos

kairos — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:40:32 +0000

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…

By: will spotts

will spotts — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:12:27 +0000

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.)

By: Jerilyn

Jerilyn — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:05:25 +0000

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…

By: kairos

kairos — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:58:35 +0000

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.

By: Michael Kruse

Michael Kruse — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:27:01 +0000

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.