I thought book banning was supposed to be a thing of the past–particularly among the self-proclaimed liberal elites. We live in a more sophisticated time where all views are accepted. Tolerance should be our highest priority.
Or so we are told.
But, apparently book banning is back in vogue. Dr. John Kutsko, executive director of the Society of Biblical Literature, has just proposed that InterVarsity Press–one of the largest evangelical presses in the country– be suspended from having a book stall at the annual SBL meeting (starting in 2017).
The reason for this ban is the recent decision by InterVarsity to uphold the biblical view of marriage and to ask their employees to do the same (see IVP clarification on their policy here).
Since I have a current book with IVP Academic, The Question of Canon, and a forthcoming book with them on Christianity in the second century, SBL would effectively be banning my books from the annual meeting. And that would be true for hundreds and hundreds of other IVP authors.
Of course, the overt hypocrisy of this is stunning. An organization that professes to be for tolerance and for accepting all opinions, has now decided to be, in effect, a “confessional” institution where the ideologies of the ruling committee decide what people should and shouldn’t believe.
So, while SBL eschewed the practices of fundamentalists, they have basically become fundamentalists themselves. They have “judged” other people’s views as not worthy of inclusion.
But, the problems with this move go even further. For one, does censorship stop with IVP? What about confessional publishing houses like Crossway or P&R? Will they be banned too? Will SBL enact a thorough investigation of each publishing house’s policies, interviewing their staff and employees, and eliciting confessions out of them regarding their view of same sex marriage?
For that matter, will accepting same-sex marriage now be a condition for individual scholars being accepted as members of SBL? Why enforce such a policy for publishers and not for members? And what of the Jewish scholars at SBL? Would this apply to them too?
What is incredible about all of this, is that SBL’s ire is directed to the simple belief that the Bible teaches marriage is between a man and a woman. So, a view that has thousands of years of history, and happens to be the view of the founding fathers of America, and the view that our country has held for hundreds of years (until recently), and a view that is held by all major theistic religions, is now banned from SBL?
To say this sounds a bit Orwellian is a profound understatement.
Unfortunately, this move by SBL is just part of the larger move in this nation to ban all opposing opinion when it comes to issues of sexuality (just think of the NCAA decision to ban games from NC). Sadly, the IVP issue is not the end, but only the beginning.
But, let me offer a commendation to IVP for being willing to stand firm on this important biblical and ethical issue. It is not easy, and they have done so. I pray that they not capitulate to pressures from groups like SBL.
For more, you can read Christianity Today’s clarification about IVP’s policy, as well as Denny Burk’s post on the same issue. And also check out Michael Bird’s open letter to the SBL director.
Stephane Jeanrenaud says
Thanks for the valuable insights. It is sad to see this creeping into academic groups like this!
Doc Cady says
“Creeping”?! This mindset has controlled academia for decades. But now it’s safe to enforce such views.
Cris A. Dickason says
Time to rename SBL to SSBL = Society of Some Biblical Literature.
Aaron says
lol that’s awesome…in the worst way something can be awesome…
Ernst Wendland says
This is SBL’s official position (just received):
“In point of fact, we ask every registrant [of the Annual Meeting in November] to accept this responsibility, namely, to support free inquiry and critical investigation, to support broad and inclusive participation from diverse scholarly points of view, and to act in a manner consistent with SBL’s mission statement and core values, as well as its policies on nondiscrimination, harassment, and professional conduct. You do this in formal sessions and informal interactions. In regards to professional conduct, remember that we are in this together. Watch out for each other. We are mutually responsible for maintaining an atmosphere and culture free of harassment and discrimination. We are also corporately responsible for ensuring that any member reporting harassment or discrimination will be heard and respected.”
So why start banning scholarly books simply because they happen to support a different (yet eminently defensible, “biblical”) stance that differs from yours, or even the majority? Does this mean that some members in this “society” maintain a “biblical” position that is so superior or correct that other options cannot be tolerated? Is this not a glaring example of the very “discrimination” that is so publicly eschewed?
Sean says
It is not surprising that their liberal definition of “tolerance” is mirrored by the most liberal and hate-filled groups that sponsor division and true intolerance, but what is surprising is that a group that espouses (quoting from commenter Ernst Wendland above) policy against ideals such as, “nondiscrimination, harassment, and professional conduct”, when indeed it will shut down any dissenting views or those views that they disagree with (the very definition of intolerance). They will not tolerate and therefore are intolerant, discriminatory, harrassers, unprofessional, bigoted and hypocritical.
They swallow a Volkswagen while straining out a fly.
The SBL’s site reads, “…the Society of Biblical literature is the oldest and largest learned society devoted to the critical investigation of the Bible from a variety of academic disciplines.” — and I add, “…so long as they do not hold literal interpretations or those who espouse ideals represented by truth derived from Scripture.”
It seems that this organization is devoted to simply investigating the Bible without believing a word of it or at minimum not allowing dissenting views from their own (except those that they should be against). Kind of defeats the whole purpose of stating, “investigating the Bible from a variety of academic disciplines”, doesn’t it?
Dr. Jan/John H. Boer says
I appreciate this article and the concerns it raises, but what’s all this surprise? Liberals have always been among the most intolerant and illiberal. So, what else would you expect? I am in only partial agreement with InterVarsity, but I fully support their right to have their booth. Fundamentalism does indeed have many faces.
David Krueger says
The hypocrisy of the left is astounding. Are they that blind to their own intolerance?
Abraao says
It is time to not be involved with anyone who rejects bible doctrine: But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1 Co 5:11
James Snapp Jr. says
What Ernst Wendland said.
Francisco Martinez says
This is another example showing that morality collapses into “might makes right” in a subjective society. Power is the judge.
my blog says
Wow because this is really greatexcellent work! Congrats and keep it up