Search News


Browse Archives

News

Too Christian or Too Narrow?

February 16, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

If there is an entry on "turning the other cheek" in the Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, those involved with the opus may want to study it.

A major scholarly project -- four volumes, hundreds of authors, 3,000 pages -- is setting off a furor, with Wiley-Blackwell halting sales, charges of anti-Christian bias, and threats of lawsuits. While the publisher unveiled the project this fall and started promoting it, it abruptly halted sales in November. The editor in chief of the encyclopedia has been circulating letters this month accusing Wiley-Blackwell of trying to censor the project because it is too Christian and because some entries are critical of Islam. The publisher in turn is charging that the editorial board for the project was ignored and that there are legitimate quality control issues that required the volumes to be pulled.

The dispute is being portrayed in some circles as a conflict between secular academics and thinkers of faith. A blog posting by one contributor to the encyclopedia is headlined: "Too Christian for Academia? A four-volume encyclopedia gets pulped in the name of political correctness." But the publisher insists that nothing has been destroyed and that the printed copies remain in storage. And some of those who have raised questions about the project are in fact Christian scholars (both in what they study and their faith).

As word of the dispute has reached some leaders in religious studies, many have said that they are baffled and concerned by how such a significant project could implode in this way. A scholarly encyclopedia of this scope is a major commitment for a publisher and the authors involved -- and this one may be kaput after all the time and money sunk into printing, but before widespread distribution. "What puzzles me the most is how this could have gotten so far before Wiley decided to pull it," said John R. Fitzmier, executive director of the American Academy of Religion.

Bernard McGinn, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Divinity School who recently asked to be removed from the editorial board for the encyclopedia because of concerns about portions of the project, said via e-mail that it was "sad that a project that showed considerable promise, has been wounded, perhaps fatally, by the actions of its main editor."

The editor in chief of the Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization is George Thomas Kurian, an independent scholar who specializes in editing and writing encyclopedias. He is editor or author of such works as A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government (Oxford University Press), Encyclopedia of the World's Nations and Cultures (Facts on File) and several encyclopedias on the Democratic and Republican parties (M.E. Sharpe).

Kurian describes himself as a Christian. And he said in an interview that he recruited only people "with some measure of Christian belief" to write the entries in the encyclopedia. He said that while some parts of the encyclopedia would deal with facts that would appear the same to a Christian or non-Christian, topics such as the virgin birth of Jesus would "seem absurd" to non-Christians and so needed to be read and written about "with Christian eyes." In terms of his approach, Kurian said that "there are differences between so-called liberal Christians," who are "Christians in name only and who say you can do anything you want" and "committed Christians" like himself. He said that he favored the latter group.

Kurian said that he was open with his publishers about his approach. "They knew what they were getting," he said. "I am an openly committed Christian." Further, he noted that prior to the printing of the book, Wiley-Blackwell copy editors and fact checkers did their standard reviews of all of the material, so there was no reason to be surprised by what was in the book.

Wiley-Blackwell officials approached him in November, he said, telling him that they had received complaints from a few people who had seen the book and who disagreed with some of the material. Kurian said that Wiley-Blackwell specifically objected to his discussion of the rise of Islam in North Africa and Spain, and his discussion of what happened to Christian communities as a result of Muslim advances. "Islam wiped out Christianity in some nations," Kurian said. But pointing this out in his introduction to the encyclopedia "didn't sit well with Islamists" who complained.

In an e-mail message he sent to contributors to the volume, Kurian said that Wiley-Blackwell officials have told him that for the encyclopedia to survive, it needs more positive material about Islam, more negative material about Christianity, and many changes that would "strip" the work of its Christianity. The e-mail describes the way complaints reached the publisher by saying: "Then the devil struck in the form of a wrecking crew ... of malcontents" on the editorial board and elsewhere. Kurian said he is exploring a lawsuit on behalf of all of those who contributed to the work, and that he's unwilling to make the kinds of changes the publisher wants.

One of those who alerted Wiley-Blackwell of concerns was McGinn, the Chicago divinity professor on the editorial board, also the author of three entries in the encyclopedia and also one of those identified by Kurian as "malcontents" who were unfairly critical. Via e-mail, McGinn said that after agreeing to be on the board in 2006, he heard nothing from Kurian about the project until he received a copy of Kurian's introduction, which unsettled him.

"The problems with Mr. Kurian’s 'Introduction' can be summarized under four headings. First, there were a good number of outright historical errors, as well as highly dubious statements and judgments. Second, there was misleading, erroneous, and potentially inflammatory language about Islam. Third, there was an almost total neglect of the contributions of the Hebrew Bible and Judaism to important Christian beliefs and values. Finally (and more subjectively, I admit), there was a tone of repetitious and bombastic Christian triumphalism that I thought did not belong in a serious scholarly project written in an era where the major religious traditions are striving for greater mutual understanding. Mr. Kurian would have it that my concern for the sensibilities of Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians is an example of exaggerated political correctness. On the contrary, I was only trying to follow St. Paul’s good advice: 'Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God' (1 Cor. 10:32)."

Wiley-Blackwell issued a statement in which it denied the "false and damaging accusations" made about the decision to halt sale of the encyclopedia. According to the statement, "serious concerns were raised by contributors" about the introduction Kurian wrote. After Wiley-Blackwell started to look into the concerns, the publisher says it was surprised to find that Kirian had not used editorial board members to help with the project, but had done the work himself. The editorial board members' expertise was needed to assure the publisher's "standards of scholarship," the statement said.

"We acknowledge that we should have been aware of the shortcut Mr. Kurian took in his editorial process sooner, but that does not change our responsibility to rectify the situation now," the statement says. As to charges that the publisher is taking an anti-Christian stand, the statement says that "Wiley (of which Wiley-Blackwell is a part) is not affiliated with any lobby or group, religious or otherwise. We have promoted the freedom of expression and ideas for over 200 years, and we will continue to do so."

Rev. Scott W. Sunquist, a member of the editorial board for the project and associate professor of world Christianity at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, said he could not discuss the situation in detail. But he said that the publisher's statement was accurate in that the editorial board members expected to be involved in reviewing entries and were not. He also confirmed that there are concerns about the "accuracy" of some of the material. And he said that it was not true to say that Wiley-Blackwell is anti-Christian.

Kurian said that he never committed to any substantive role for the editorial board. He said that Wiley-Blackwell put together the board "as a showcase of prominent people," and that the objections didn't justify the publisher's actions, which he said are an attack on freedom of expression. "You don't scrap a book because four people don't like it," he said.

Further, Kurian noted that some prominent scholars of religion praised the encyclopedia. In blurbs on the Amazon.com site, Mark Noll, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, said of the work: "George Kurian's thoughtfully conceived Encyclopedia does a fine job with its authoritative articles, sensible bibliographies, and consistently illuminating treatments." Edwin Yamauchi, a professor emeritus of history at Miami University, is quoted as saying: " The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization promises to be an exceedingly valuable reference work, as it is nearly exhaustive in scope, including a wide range of authoritative essays."

Fitzmier, of the American Academy of Religion, said that he was surprised by Kurian's statement that he wanted only people with Christian beliefs to work on the project. Such an approach wouldn't be unusual for a Christian press, he said, but is for a press without a religious affiliation like Wiley-Blackwell. While Wiley-Blackwell publishes many works by scholars of faith, that's not a requirement for writing about religion, he said. (The American Academy of Religion has members who study their own faiths, and those who study other faiths or who apply a strictly secular approach to their research on religion.)

"Secular publishers, non-religious houses, tend to want to have an even playing field," he said. "They expect scholars of religion not to plead special cases."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Too Christian or Too Narrow?

  • Objective Inquiry
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , Assistant Provost at Indiana Wesleyan University on February 16, 2009 at 7:05am EST
  • Scott, This article is perhaps as well balanced as any could hope for on this controversial situation. Thanks. This sort of reminds me of Abelard’s sic et non approach, esp. citing such strong voices on quality scholarship as Yamauchi and Noll. In fact, Blackwell would do well to have both on its board. In the final analysis, some aspects of human history simply are not pleasing to recount, but regardless of the lens we look through, historians have established objective methods of inquiry (see McCullah’s Justifying Historical Descriptions, Wilkens’ The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, Craig’s Jesus Under Fire [esp. Yamauchi’s chapter], and Fischer’s Historians Fallacies). Over the years, Blackwell has done well to represent such an approach while including authors from a mélange of interests and viewpoints. Pulling any book from the shelves invites international scrutiny, regardless of who is at fault.

  • Posted by John Lobell , Professor at Pratt Institute on February 16, 2009 at 8:40am EST
  • More evidence that we are moving back to a previous time, a dark ages. In the past, when there was disagreement with a book, that disagreement was expressed in reviews, articles, and counter books. Now political pressure is brought and the book is withdrawn, or, as we see in Europe, the author is brought to trail, see for example Oriana Fallaci. Is that the next step here?

  • Posted by John Lobell , Professor at Pratt Institute on February 16, 2009 at 8:40am EST
  • Let me add -- I have of course not read the material, but I am always interested in writings about a religion by those who actually believe it. Guess such writings will now be harder to come by inthe case of Christianity.

  • Editorial Process
  • Posted by John F. DeFelice , Associate Professor of History at University of Maine at Presque Isle on February 16, 2009 at 8:40am EST
  • I concur with Jerry. This is a balanced article on a difficult subject. The problem seems to be in the editorial and peer review process. Wiley-Blackwell has a reputation for scholarship and fairness and therefore has a responsibility in this kind of publication to insert itself into the process. Statements like "Islam wiped out Christianity in some nations" is historically misleading and seems to deny how Christianity wiped out Islam in Spain after the Reconquisita. How can one deny the Inquisition of the lapsed in Spain and deny the history of millions of Christians who have continued to live in Muslim nations for hundreds of years? Or forget that millions of Christians, persecuted by those of their own faith, welcomed Muslims as liberators? History is harsh mistress to those who tell one side of the tale. I also concur with Jerry in regards to a new editorial process. Having known Edwin Yamauchi for many years, if Wiley- Blackwell wants to resurrect this project, he is one that could salvage the work and make its scholarship acceptable to a much wider readership. On a final note, I am concerned about Mr. Kurian's comment that a "non-believer" writing about the Virgin Birth and by extension, any key or unique component of the Christian faith would only call it nonsense. If he were intellectually honest with such a sweeping generalization of the historical profession, then only a Muslim should write about Islam or only a Buddhist should write about their faith. Such assumptions are baseless. They are ground out of our thinking the first semester of graduate school. I would guess that the articles in this work, for the most part, are stronger than the process that edited them. If I have any criticism for Wiley-Blackwell, it is that they did not investigate this problem before the galley proofs went to the printer!

  • What an unholy mess!
  • Posted by T on February 16, 2009 at 8:40am EST
  • I would hope that four-volume encyclopedia on Christianity would include the entire range of Christian thought and history, including the "so-called liberal Christians" that Kerian kept out of the project. Now Kerian is accusing anyone who disagrees with his slant on Christianity as being "anti-Christian."

    This makes me very sad.

  • Liberal Christians aren't committed???
  • Posted by Steve on February 16, 2009 at 8:50am EST
  • As a progressive/liberal Christian and scholar, I'm offended by the notion that I am not "committed" and that I have an anything-goes approach to faith. My liberalism is an expression of faith considered rationally and carefully, and after deep reflection and prayer.

    Many of the concerns raised by both sides are legitimate; how does one deal with inconvenient realities in sensitive ways, such as what Christians and Muslims have done to each other over the centuries? Telling the truth is necessary, as is sensitivity to present situations.

  • Nice Article Scott ...
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on February 16, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • It would be easy to be expansive on this topic, but as a voracious reader, I have read more accolades about books – most written by presumably authoritative “scholars” -- than makes good sense. I would interpret ...

    “George Kurian’s thoughtfully conceived Encyclopedia does a fine job with its authoritative articles, sensible bibliographies, and consistently illuminating treatments.”

    Mark Noll, Professor of History, University of Notre Dame

    and

    “The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization promises to be an exceedingly valuable reference work, as it is nearly exhaustive in scope, including a wide range of authoritative essays.”

    Edwin Yamauchi, Professor Emeritus of History, Miami University

    as saying as virtually nothing about the accuracy or even the authoritativeness of this tome. By comparison, how does this one grab you ...

    “Ward Churchill has carved out a special place for himself in defending the rights of oppressed people, and exposing the dark side of past and current history, often marginalized or suppressed. These are achievements of inestimable value.”

    Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    This sort of pap – in this case about Churchill’s “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance” -- even when it’s written by the world’s leading public intellectual, is both substantively meaningless and, more often than not, intellectually dishonest. In any event, it should not be used as evidence that a 3,000-page, four-volume encyclopedia is either accurate or authoritative.

  • Posted by Eveningsun on February 16, 2009 at 10:51am EST
  • Writings about a religion by those who actually believe it... will now be harder to come by. What? I don't think we'll have any problem getting our hands on writing on Christianity by believers. Seems to be a heckuva lot of it out there!

    As for the equation of "an anything-goes approach to faith" with liberal Christianity--hoo boy. I would characterize as "conservative Christianity" everything from the Christianity of the current pope, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons (the polygamist sects are especially conservative), and many others whose theologies vary pretty wildly. Seems to me that "anything goes" in the conservative precincts as well....

  • I am more christian than you are...PLlltth!
  • Posted by dundermifflin on February 16, 2009 at 11:20am EST
  • "In terms of his approach, Kurian said that “there are differences between so-called liberal Christians,” who are “Christians in name only and who say you can do anything you want” and “committed Christians” like himself. He said that he favored the latter group."

    What drivel! So much for sensitivity and equanimity!

  • Political correctness
  • Posted by Henry , Research Fellow at UOW on February 16, 2009 at 11:55am EST
  • Seems like when there is criticism of one's ideas the best defense is that your beliefs are attacked because the work is not 'politically correct'. Damn the facts, damn the history, damn the research if it isn't what I like or what I prefer, it's defeated by accusations of 'political correct' attacks.

  • What a shame
  • Posted by chris on February 16, 2009 at 2:36pm EST
  • that the 7 people who would have looked at this will now be unable to.

  • Politically Correct?
  • Posted by Larry , Professor Emeritus at Vanguard University on February 16, 2009 at 4:35pm EST
  • In view of the four volumes having been pulled, most of us will never know whether the work has validity or not. One aspect of the criticism is troubling. It is politically incorrect to criticize Islam in the milieu of our time. Some of that is attributable to a form of multiculturalism, but some of it is obviously due to fear. There are no such limits of criticism of historic Christianity. Was that a factor in the book having been recalled? It would be interesting to know.

  • Posted by Assistant Professor on February 16, 2009 at 5:40pm EST
  • "Statements like “Islam wiped out Christianity in some nations” is historically misleading and seems to deny how Christianity wiped out Islam in Spain after the Reconquisita."

    I fail to see how this statement is historically misleading; the first Arab invasions of Mesopotamia and Northern Africa devastated whole nations, and enslaved or force-converted over a million people. In no way does this fact deny the Reconquisita any more than does Pol Pot's extermination of Kampuchea's population somehow make the Vietnam War less relevant.

    On a more personal note, I am saddened to see when discourse is stifled because some group feels offended by it. Self-censorship is a dangerous road, and made more dangerous when the censorship occurs out of fear. Let the books be published, and let those who are offended write books to counter it. We will have taken a giant step back into ignorance if we allow the possibility of 'hurt feelings' to preclude important discussion.

  • Freedon of Expression
  • Posted by Karyn, Theological Librarian on February 16, 2009 at 7:36pm EST
  • How impressive...
    I have read biographies on Jesus that if I removed the title, I would not be able to identify about whom they were writing. To some, this is correctness. To some, it is the very lack of freedom that imdermines democracy.

    This 4 volume set is not entitled, "Civilization," or, "Western Civilization" or "Religious Civilization." It is a work about Christianity, by title alone, it has a spoken bias, a Christian perspective. Has anyone read about the American Revolution from a British perspective... avert your eyes!

  • Politial correctness has nothing to do with it
  • Posted by Contributor to the Encycl on February 16, 2009 at 8:45pm EST
  • The objections made to the publishers by some of the contributors were to the Editor's Introduction and were not based on the grounds of political correctness. Contributors were invited to participate and add their expertise and reputation to the work on the basis that it was to be a scholarly work. The writers’ guidelines set out the scholarly expectations, including that different points of view on topics should be reflected and controversies dealt with in a balanced way. The Editor’s Introduction contradicted these guidelines. It was polemical and dismissive in its approach, ignored alternative points of view, and was simply historically inaccurate in numerous places. It apparently bypassed normal processes of peer review and editorial scrutiny that would pick up these things. Since the Introduction sets the tone of the whole work, it was reasonable for scholars concerned about integrity to object. Since when have grace, accuracy and truthfulness become anti-Christian qualities?
    Just a few quotes from the Introduction for people to make their own judgments:
    "The original Christian homelands of Christians in North Africa and the Middle East were stolen by Muslims who unleashed one of the most brutal massacres characteristic of their faith and race. The Mongols and the Turks followed, like locusts, and wiped out the church in Asia."
    "Christianity has no temporal power; it exists based simply on the strength of its ideas.”
    "(Christianity) opposes the warproneness of human societies with turn-the-other-cheek nonviolence."
    "Unlike secular civilization, Christian civilization is not a closed space, like a squirrel cage."
    "Despite the unchecked license in the modern world to initiate false doctrines and lure unsuspecting persons to follow them, there are only a handful of marginal churches that have substantial membership, among them Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Unitarians. The greater danger to orthodox believers is not so much from these marginal Christians but from spiritual quislings within the church, as for example in the U. S. Episcopalian Church, who don the garb of traditional faith but preach and uphold worse heresies than Unitarians."
    "The god of all religions is an unnamed and unknowable being whose power comes from the fact that he is unknowable, capricious and quick to punish. He expects his created beings to grovel before him and placate him with sacrifices and endless adulation. He expects tributes of money and material goods as part of the acknowledgment of his sovereignty. Generally he consorts and cavorts with lesser gods as well as his minions to enforce his will or convey his pleasure or displeasure. All the world religions use the occult as instruments of their power.”
    “Before Christianity, all societies were immoral or tainted with immoral traditions... Christianity introduced monogamy and chastity into the world.”
    “In the early church women were always treated as the equals of men.”
    Etc.

  • Eveningsun...
  • Posted by Robert Casteline on February 16, 2009 at 8:45pm EST
  • Certainly here in the US there are plenty of outlets for all kinds of writings, Christian or otherwise. However, one need only look to Canada where critical remarks can bring one up on human right abuse charges. That environment stifles real academic/ public speech freedom. It could certainly be that Wiley determined that such a book would not be profitable in certain countries because of its critique of Islam. This does not discount the possible myopia of the content (which none of us have seen), but some of the reasons that were cited for the project being shelved at the moment are telling.

  • They of little faith
  • Posted by Steve on February 17, 2009 at 4:55am EST
  • Kurian was certainly right to warn us about those "so-called Christians . . . who say you can do anything you want." Just look at what one of that bunch has written: "Dilige et quod vis fac." And another one of those liberals said: "Crucifixus est dei filius; non pudet, quia pudendum est. Et mortuus est dei filius; credibile prorsus est, quia ineptum est. Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile est." I certainly wouldn't want him to write anything about the virgin birth.

  • Slavery, eh?
  • Posted by Diogenes on February 17, 2009 at 4:55am EST
  • And how many Africans did Christianity enslave, forcibly baptize as they were loaded in ships in chains shortly after they were branded? How many died in sugar cane plantations, mines and in neglect? Did God judge that rape of a people, assistant professor? The man was right. It was misleading. To cry out the crimes of one religion while sugar coating the crimes of your own is the height of hypocrisy!

  • Posted by Interested By-Stander on February 17, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • Apparently, Contributor to the Encycl would have me believe that brief excerpts taken out of context are sufficient to justify denying me the opportunity to read Kurian's introductory article myself, and make up my own mind about it in the context of all of the other contributions to the work. I hope Kurian's article will be published. I could not care less about the rest of them.

  • Posted by Assistant Professor on February 17, 2009 at 11:05am EST
  • "Did God judge that rape of a people, assistant professor? The man was right. It was misleading. To cry out the crimes of one religion while sugar coating the crimes of your own is the height of hypocrisy!"

    I'm unsure as to what you're getting at. Pointing out a crime does not absolve anything, neither does it diminish anything. The Islamic destruction of civilizations and enslavement of north and west Africans is not some unique crime; Westerners took advantage of that slave trade for the cotton plantations in the New World.

    But making note of the Arab slave trade is not asking to absolve the Western slave trade. It is merely part of the history of slavery - which continues to this day.

    It is, however, silly to require that anyone who points out historical atrocities 'balance' their argument with atrocities carried out by the West. It is perfectly scholarly to talk about the destruction of Zoroastrian civilization without having to temper it with some pap about the inquisition.

  • The Politics of Publishing and Religion
  • Posted by JT on February 17, 2009 at 1:00pm EST
  • I think it should be emphasized that Bernard McGinn is not just another professor emeritus, but is one of the best known names in the study of the history of religion. His five-volume history of mysticism is incredibly well-known among religion scholars and elicits words such as 'magisterial' and 'magnum opus'. Even those who disagree with him have a high degree of respect for him (and no, I've never met the man).

    I can only imagine that when McGinn asked Wiley-Blackwell to remove his name from the project, they must have been concerned about potential financial backlash. His name is well-known, his withdrawal would be noticed by their market audience. That's bad for business.

  • Bummer
  • Posted by Stewart Davenport , Associate Professor of History at Pepperdine University on February 18, 2009 at 7:15pm EST
  • What a shame that a Christian scholar would do such harm to the cause of Christian scholarship. I am sure that George Kurian is well meaning, but his choice of words and unilateral editorial decisions have obviously reaped the whirlwind, and rightly so. Discerning between "liberal Christians" and "committed Christians" is more than undiplomatic, and his actions as editor constitute for me a blatant abuse of his position. Most of all, what bothers me is the fact that it seems that Kurian attempted to turn what was supposed to be an even-handed treatment of Christianity for a wide audience of believers and non-believers alike, into an apologetic or instrument of conversion. This is not the purpose of such a work, and this whole episode sadly reinforces the misconceptions of what many non-Christians think Christians are doing in their scholarship. Christians have all the freedom in the world to talk to one another and to use a particular shared language and assummptions when they do so. But when that Christian is claiming to do solid and substantiated research, the language, assumptions, and general rules of the game are totally different. We are all biased, but when a Christian scholar does shoddy and misleading work, he is obviously no scholar at all. A commitment to fairness and truthful representation should be the mark of all Christian scholars. If we are not a trusted voice, then we do not--and should not--have a voice at all.

  • Posted by Dennis Ruhl on February 20, 2009 at 3:20pm EST
  • In case you folks missed it there is no such things as the Christian religion in practical terms. There are thousands of groups thet believe they have a monopoly on theology and history. I think it would be highly unusual to get three Christians together and come to any kind of agreement on facts. As with every other scholarly work it is a summation of opinions. Present any historical fact and someone will dismiss it as a myth. You can note your disagreement and get on with life.

    Forced baptisms in Africa? When and where did that happen? Christianity was poorly received in Africa and was a small minority 50 years ago but has since become the largest religion on the continent.

  • Posted by Dennis Ruhl on February 23, 2009 at 4:04pm EST
  • I had never read anything about forced baptism in Africa and I’ve read a number of African church histories but am by no means an expert. A forced baptism is no baptism at all. I decided do some quick research and found Inquisition stuff as expected, mostly involving Jews. I found a few items which might suggest it did happen on rare occasions.

     

    My reading of African history relates more to missionaries who would work a lifetime with one or two or maybe a handful of converts. These converts were the ones who Africanized the church and brought it into general acceptance in much of Africa. Forged baptisms must have happened but were uncommon.