The SBL (of which I am a member) is banning the IVP Press (of which books, I do read) from having a display at the annual SBL Conference in November this year (the largest Biblical studies conference in the world).
Rod Dreher has a go at what this means.
Is this Orwells' 1984 come upon us?
Or just the peculiarity of binary USA?
Peter, the joint statement from IVP and SBL puts things in a different pespective. http://www.ivpress.com/media/press-releases/2016/ivp-sbl-joint-statement.php
Hi Peter; I suspect like most of the world I'd never heard of SBL . Like most Christians, I have read lots and lots from IVP. The Soviets, Nazis and other controlling types banned books. Most rational people think that's kinda weird. I suggest you use that SBL subscription for your Anglican missions.
Thanks; and, yes, there is a different, more eirenical perspective therein.
But I do wonder (as now noted in the post above) why the question is arising.
That is a tempting thought, Nick!
However the SBL (at least at this point in time) is a huge network of all kinds of biblical scholars, mostly Christian (and a varied bunch of Christians at that) and it would be a pity to make a premature judgment as to where all this might end up.
For instance, if, in the end, IVP is banned, will Catholic publishing houses also be banned? (And if not, why not!)
Incidentally, there is a global Catholic association, the Catholic Biblical Association, which also publishes an important journal CBQ = Catholic Biblical Quarterly. (SBL publishes JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature).
Dear Peter, as an acknowledged member of SBL, do you agree with the criticism of this recent "Ban The Books" campaign by its promoters? One does wonder whether the Society is really as 'respectful, open and inclusive' as its promotion represents. Especially when the anti-gay protest is on supposedly 'Biblical grounds'.
"You might wonder why an academic organization devoted to Biblical scholarship holds as its core values “respect for diversity,” “openness to change,” “inclusivity,” and “tolerance”? Isn’t this just one of those typically euphemistic liberal ways of saying, “No Biblical scholars who don’t accept progressive views on LGBT issues allowed”?"
I am not sure what to think in the light of the joint statement of the SBL and IVP because it sounds like whatever is happening is a work in progress, i.e. too early to judge definitively.
What I am clear about is that a large, inclusive, global-reaching organization such as SBL needs to understand that (1) it is not a purely American organization (2) to the extent that Christians make up a large majority of its members, its policies on anything and everything need to account for the breadth and variety of Christian views.
On the one hand we can understand if the SBL does not welcome the (hypothetical) "Biblical Nazis Publications" to display its wares at the annual SBL conference. On the other hand I and (it would appear) others would be somewhat perturbed if various publishing houses of conservative churches (e.g. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) and conservative movements (e.g. IVP) were unable to display at the conference as they have previously done.
"Is this Orwells' 1984 come us?
Or just the peculiarity of binary USA.?" -- Peter.
How about it being?: "And he causeth all,both small and great, rich and poor,free and bond,to receive a mark in their right hand,or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy and sell, save he that has the mark,
or the name of the beast,or the number of his name.." Rev. 13: 16&17.
A number of years ago,Dennis Peacock warned that Universities were no longer seeking to discover or interested in teaching universal truths;but were promoting a single world view based on neo-Darwinistic/cultural marxism. They had changed from being Universities to being Monoversities.
Obama has been at the UN. crying:"Prepare ye the way for the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT,make straight it's path".Prof. J Muller warns us about the untoward influence that the LGBT have in Academy. One can only commend Inter-Varsity for standing up against this orchestrated litany of lies which is being foisted on students in the name of social justice.
I have already commented in the blogg: "The Power of the Message" Oct 20th and Oct 21st; on the dangers to the Christian Church (in particular,the Church of Rome), if Clinton wins the election.This is factual information which has surfaced through WikiLeaks.
Hi Peter, according to sites like heterodoxacademy.org, US institutions do seem to de-platform anyone who might hurt the feelings of certain groups and their causes célèbres. De-platforming is essentially what SBL is trying to do to IVP. De-platforming obviously occurs elsewhere than in the US. Sometimes conservatives can sit back and watch progressives have a war among themselves; for example when feminism is not ready to embrace transgenderism. De-platformers should obviously be exposed and challenged for the sake of real debate. Feelings cannot interfere with truth.
"De-platforming" a new but easily understood term :)
To put things in a wider, historical perspective, "de-platforming" has been performed for years among conservative evangelicals (well, among conservative and not-so-conservative-in-our-view evangelicals, if you get my drift).
However organizations with the breadth of SBL have been joined by a wide body of people precisely on the grounds that it is a non-de-platforming body, given that there are plenty of de-platforming bodies to belong to ...
Hi Peter, I am not a member of SBL, but am pleased to hear that it doesn't de-platform except possibly in this instance? There is, of course, an argument that IVP is de-platforming its employees, but presumably they knew that IVP was evangelical when they took the job. SBL's possible action re IVP seems odd in light of the SBL broad membership.
"I have already commented in the blogg: "The Power of the Message" Oct 20th and Oct 21st; on the dangers to the Christian Church (in particular,the Church of Rome), if Clinton wins the election.This is factual information which has surfaced through WikiLeaks.' - Glen Young -
Does this mean then, Glen, that - along with most Evangelical Christians in the U.S. - you would prefer the womanizing, clumsy-footed 'El Trumpo' to be at the helm of U.S. politics? Sounds disastrous to me and many other Kiwis.
(BTW, FWIW; my spell-check rejects the word 'blogg')
I am going to omit one sentence from your comment because I personally do not know of its verification ...
"It is great to see the whole Trump family UNITED in the campaign.
A great number of us Evangelical Christians,who live by and in the LOVE and FORGIVENESS of CHRIST are not judgmental of either candidates;however,when it is obvious that Hillary is going to continue Obama's policy of leading America into the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT of the UN.,we say enough is enough.We love Christ and His Church too much, to see it denigrated by the likes of Clinton co-horts John Podesta and Jennifer Palmiere. Podesta is chairman of "Hillary For President". Palmiere,ex White House communications director for Obama, now holds that function for "Hillary for President".In 2003,Podesta founded the liberal,D.C. based think tank,"Center for American Progress" (CAP).The very same organization which retired + Gene Robinson went to following his same-sex divorce.
On Feb 11th 2012,"Voices for Progress" President,Sandford Newman emailed Poesta about creating a "Catholic Spring" to bring a little democracy into the Church.He emailed:"There needs to be a spring,in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a 'middle ages dictatorship'and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church". It is alleged that Podesta responded by suggesting:"We created 'Catholics In Alliance For The Common Good (CACG)', to help Catholics into opposing Official Church Doctrine."
If this is not political interference with Church affairs,I don't know what is!!!! But it gets worse for the Church and not only in America. Obama. speaking last month to the UN; stated that Nations must be prepared to give up much of their SOVEREIGNTY to the UN.,in the cause of fighting terrorism.
So, we must give up our Sovereignty and accept the One World Government's anti-Christian FALSE RELIGION where the Christian Church must conform to Agenda 20/30 or face persecution.The question the American people face on Nov. 8th; is whether they wish to remain a free sovereign Nation with a Church which worships Her SOVEREIGN LORD AND SAVIOUR or allow Clinton to take them headlong into the One World Dictatorship and it's false religion. TEC has already decided to conform to the UN. Worldview on equality and social justice but many Evangelical Christians do not wish to follow suit.We
recognize our Sovereign Lord and the Authority of His Word. Call us Sola Scriptura,I see it as a compliment.
Glen, this is called 'nationalism' which doesn'the necessarily equate with Christianity. A bit like Brexit, really. Xenophobic, even?
Call it anything you want!!!!It could even be 'jackabooism';but go tell the American people who have lost their manufacturing jobs to Mexico and elsewhere that they are Xenophobic.Go tell it to the people,whose Obama Medicare fees have doubled to 2017 dollars per month for a family of four with the claim limits set so high, that their ordinary doctors costs are not retrievable.All this while Obama and Clinton have spent six trillion dollars interfering in Egypt,Libya and Syria.
The Trump campaign has given the American people, a voice with which to express their "RIGHTEOUS ANGER",about people whose narcistic egotism has led them to believe that they are bigger than the NATION they were ELECTED TO SERVE.
These people desire to give away the SOVEREIGNTY of their Nation to an One World Government serving a FALSE god,(not for the good of America but their own); promoting false social justice,open boarders and free trade agreements which will turn the American population into SERFS in their own Nation.The Scriptures give us a rightly balanced view of nationalism.It was interesting to see that the Amish people have been stirred up into 'righteous anger' and will, for the first time in their American history,WILL VOTE IN AN ELECTION.
Their MORAL INDIGNATION is not against Trump but against Clinton/Obama for their anti-Christian stances.
Peter, In a earlier blog,I seem to recollect that you made mention of Obama's wife, being 'Presidential Material'.You may care to investigate the currant status of both their 'Law Practicing Certificates';along with that of H.R.Clinton.
Glen, the FBI is raisin' the currant status of Michelle's scones.
Post a Comment