Stacks of unsold books and glum publishers stood for three days inside the cavernous Dallas Convention Center this past weekend at the Christian Book Expo, a first-of-its-kind event designed to connect publishers and authors directly with readers in the evangelical Christian market. Only problem was there were few readers to connect with, despite the show's location in Dallas, the buckle of the Bible Belt and a top market for Christian publishers. The show, sponsored by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association, attracted 1,500 consumer attendees; it had hoped for 15,000-20,000.My experience there is reflective of Nelson's report. I was on a panel about the "emerging church" sponsored by Christianity Today and moderated by Mark Galli. My fellow panelists were Scot McKnight, Kevin DeYoung, and Alex & Brett Harris.
We were in a room with probably 700 chairs, and there might have been 100 people in attendance. The discussion on our panel wasn't all that energetic, with the only real juju coming when Scot accused Kevin and his co-author, Ted Kluck, of being "uncharitable" in their book on why they're not emergent. Galli interjected that McKnight was crossing a line in calling DeYoung uncharitable, but McKnight persisted, arguing that by knowingly misrepresenting their opponents, DeYoung and Kluck are, by definition, uncharitable.
I came to Scot's defense. After reading their anti-emergent book, I was unimpressed. In dealing with my work, for instance, DeYoung and Kluck cherry-picked their way through my blog posts, never even citing one book I've written. They ignored, for instance, that I've published an annotated version of A Pilgrim's Progress, one of the most treasured books of their Calvinist tradition. When evidence contradictory to one's thesis is willfully ignored, this, I think, is uncharitable.
A similar thing happened yesterday, as I spoke at Houghton College. Here is a question I got, verbatim: "How can you defend Brian McLaren when he rejects the atonement." A Houghton theology prof, John Case, answered in my stead, with some anger in his voice: "It is outrageous when evangelicals chastise emergents over issues of "truth" while making statements that are patently and knowingly false. I have read every book that McLaren has written, and he have never rejected the atonement. And, further, no particular understanding of the atonment was ever affirmed by an historic church council, thus one's view on the atonement is not a test of orthodoxy."
Now, I suppose that I have uncharitably represented some of my theological opponents on my blog and in my books, so I am open to the charge of hypocrisy. I plead nolo contendere. So be it.
Back to the Expo. After the panel, I walked around a bit with publicist extraordinaire, Kelly Hughes, and we were both a bit aghast at the emptiness of the place. The CBE was an attempt by the Evangelical Publisher's Association to develop a direct-to-consumers event that would bring readers and authors together (interestingly, just what Doug and I are trying to do with our company). What doesn't seem to make sense, however, is to ask people to pay to come to an event so that they can buy product.
To be sure, there was content being offered. Our panel, for instance. But the rest of the program was so clearly skewed in the direction of one version of Christianity ("How to Rapture-Proof Your Teen in 40 Days") that I couldn't find anything of interest for myself.
I don't know the answer for the struggles of the publishing industry, but this wasn't it.
That said, I have a hearty appreciate for Mark Kuyper and the ECPA. At least they're taking risks and trying new things.
A similar thing happened yesterday, as I spoke at Houghton College. Here is a question I got, verbatim: "How can you defend Brian McLaren when he rejects the atonement." A Houghton theology prof, John Case, answered in my stead, with some anger in his voice: "It is outrageous when evangelicals chastise emergents over issues of "truth" while making statements that are patently and knowingly false. I have read every book that McLaren has written, and he have never rejected the atonement. And, further, no particular understanding of the atonment was ever affirmed by an historic church council, thus one's view on the atonement is not a test of orthodoxy."
Now, I suppose that I have uncharitably represented some of my theological opponents on my blog and in my books, so I am open to the charge of hypocrisy. I plead nolo contendere. So be it.
Back to the Expo. After the panel, I walked around a bit with publicist extraordinaire, Kelly Hughes, and we were both a bit aghast at the emptiness of the place. The CBE was an attempt by the Evangelical Publisher's Association to develop a direct-to-consumers event that would bring readers and authors together (interestingly, just what Doug and I are trying to do with our company). What doesn't seem to make sense, however, is to ask people to pay to come to an event so that they can buy product.
To be sure, there was content being offered. Our panel, for instance. But the rest of the program was so clearly skewed in the direction of one version of Christianity ("How to Rapture-Proof Your Teen in 40 Days") that I couldn't find anything of interest for myself.
I don't know the answer for the struggles of the publishing industry, but this wasn't it.
That said, I have a hearty appreciate for Mark Kuyper and the ECPA. At least they're taking risks and trying new things.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I agree with Dave James that what the Bible says is the most important thing. But much of the Bible itself is history - history which airs the bad things as well as the good things about its "heroes." For a couple of centuries folks have elevated their opinions of Bible passages and church history over recognized Greek scholarship and history experts - and we're as divided as ever on the rapture issue. Unlike MacPherson who at least supplies quotes and sources, James rests on his opinions and doesn't give us even one "scholarly work" which supposedly disproves criticism of Darby. And how was James able to check out MacPherson's sources in such a short time? II Tim. 3:14 has the phrase "knowing of whom thou hast learned them" - know something about your teachers, past and present. What the Word says is important, and in I Tim. 3 it lists mandatory qualifications for church leaders - leaders ranging from Darby and Scofield on down to Lindsey, LaHaye, Ice, etc. Jesus said that a rotten tree can't bring forth good fruit - and we're called to be fruit inspectors. Of course Darby can't respond after his death, but isn't it of interest to see how he responded before his death? (Some seem to think that historians should deal with only living persons!) History shows us what past Bible teachers thought the Bible was teaching - and whether they rested only on the Word or something else. MacPherson has evidence that many such teachers, including Bullinger and Lindsey, have blended in even occultic notions such as astrology, disguised as evangelical orthodoxy! Even Margaret Macdonald's best friends were involved in telepathy and automatic writing! When evangelicals compare Mormonism with the Bible, they utilize more than theology; they also expose the dirty linen in the lives of Smith and Young. So why is there a double standard which says it's wrong to discuss the (covered up) dirty linen of Scofield, etc.? Nowadays the world is hating Christians and Christ more than ever - and it often mentions (as their "excuse") the names of TV preachers who've had scandals. But if Christians had been more careful to follow the "discipline" in I Tim. 3, maybe the world today would be more friendly and open towards us. If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, the Word says. If we can cover up stealing when prophecy teachers commit it, should we be surprised if God allows our government to steal what we own? With the same measure we mete, it shall be measured to us again, the Word says. Can we continue to believe that the Lord is the real author of a latter-day belief that continues to be riddled with dishonesty?
Jake: Just for clarification - I didn't check any of the sources that were mentioned because my point was purely philosophical about the approach to the issue and using ad hominem argumentation to prove a point. In fact, my point was precisely (as was indicated in my illustration) that even if the research is 100% accurate it does nothing to either prove / disprove or support / refute the biblical issue itself.
However, I can say this, that I personally know Charles Ryrie and he is one of the most humble, brilliant, consistent, gracious, articulate theologians of our time. He is a good man, period. The brief statement made in the article accuses him of plagiarism and implies that he is simply part of a long line of conspiracy. Of all of the people mentioned Dr. Ryrie doesn't need to plagiarize anyone to make his points. I'm 50 years old and I say, teach and write things all the time that I have picked up from 25 years of reading and listening to a wide range of theologians and their arguments. All of us have our personal positions informed and shaped by these things. Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Who thought of something first? The first person to write it? Not necessarily. There are a dozen explanations for how similar ideas - even down to the phrasing - could completely innocently show up in more than one book, sermon, conversation, etc. My issue is the wholesale attack upon the character and integrity of a whole host of people when there are any number of possible explanations that I would guess have not been explored - which is bad enough by itself - but then this is used to prove that a biblical doctrine must be wrong. That is ad hominem argumentation and this probably the most irresponsible approach that could possibly be taken - particularly by someone who attempts to use this approach to also elevate his own scholarship above those he is attacking.
That link is broken, but there's another one here:
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=b055dd51f345c802c26c
[Listen, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I think you're wrong on the positions you take on most issues, just as I'm sure you think I'm wrong, but I've been known to defend your view of the atonement as fairly orthodox, based on what I read in that paper you read at Wheaton (Re: Orthodoxy as an event), so please don't take this the wrong way.]
Okay, DeYoung and Kluck seemed pretty uncharitable, I would have to agree - but as regards John Case's comment regarding McLaren not denying anything taught in church councils, would that even make a difference if he did? What if the atonement had been affirmed in a church council? What if some Christian leader (let's say McLaren for argument's sake) came out tomorrow as a Pelagian, which was condemned by the council of Carthage, would that make a difference? What if he came out as an Arian? Would anyone in the conversation actually take a stand and say that he's gone too far and is now in the realm of heresy? I'm sure some would, but it's not as though many wouldn't continue to defend his theological and academic right to come to his own conclusions regarding the nature of God. Hell; even I might. The reason I'm asking is, why is the mentioning of the councils even brought up in the first place?
This is why I suggested that you can go to historical theology for some information and even possible guidance in interpretation, but this can only be done in the context of biblical theology.
Historical theology is ultimately a history of theological understanding / interpretation of the text - but I agree that it really doesn't matter. And the names of the various controversies that were "decided" are simply just short-hand for often complicated issues.
At this point in time, after 2000 years, I don't think there is really "anything new under the sun" - just a reworking / re-application of what has gone before. As one of my theology teachers once put it, "if you come up with a novel / new interpretation that has never been seen / used before, then it's probably heresy."
We now have the responsibility to teach the interpretations that most faithfully and consistently handle all the relevant biblical texts on a given topic. When someone takes positions that are contrary to a plain and obvious reading of the text, then they need to be called on it and we all need to have a teachable spirit to keep us all in line.
Paul's goal, for example, was to have everyone in all of the churches believe exactly the same thing. Variety might be the spice of life, but when it comes to theology, variety is the poison of the Christian life.
If there is such a thing as truth, and I believe there is on every issue - then when we are with the Lord, and see Him as He is face-to-face, then we will all believe - or learning to believe that truth.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.