Society of Biblical Literature Bans Inter-Varsity from 2017 Convention
I cannot find the official release, and apparently SBL is holding this close to their chest, like cowards do. Here is the best I can find to confirm this:
When somebody asked a SBL publicist to respond, all he received was this awesome reply:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
….to watch invertebrates try to wrestle. Praying for IV here, as they really need to address some things.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
A situation like this calls for a sober, politically-correct, sensitive, firm and yet unoffensive response. I volunteer to step into the breach to issue this thoughtful response to the SBL:
Bye, bye … losers.
In one respect, I am very glad our culture is forcing apostate and spineless organizations, individuals and churches to reveal their true colors. Peace out, SBL. Have fun on your ongoing carnival-ride into looniness and foolishness.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
And so it begins. Now: What will evangelicals do who are members of SBL?
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Dr. Michael Kruger, President of RTS Charlotte and author of two essential books on the canon, writes:
Dan Wallace encourages everybody to write letters to the SBL.
Oh, wait … I posted links to evangelicals. Am I an unwitting member of … the convergence?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
This is just but one reason why there is an ETS meeting and a separate SBL meeting. Sooner or later evangelicals will learn that the SBL is not their friend.
http://www.ivpress.com/media/press-releases/2016/ivp-sbl-joint-statemen…
“While many concerned scholars have commented on social media and by email about a supposed ban of InterVarsity Press from exhibiting at the SBL-AAR Annual Meeting, IVP has not been banned or limited in any way at the Annual Meeting or for other matters relating to SBL. At its meeting later this month, the SBL Council will discuss protocols and standards for exhibitors and other groups associated with SBL in the context of ongoing discussions involving academic freedom and the disciplinary standards of discourse the organization fosters.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The joint statement is full of nice generalities and pleasant sounding words, but everyone knows this is just the first step in excluding those who do not except the culture’s standards.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
As I translate the link (thank you Aaron), it seems as if SBL is more or less saying “we are going to be discussing whether we ought to exclude those who make politically unpopular conclusions from the pages of Scripture from our forum.”
OK, and they’re accusing IVP of being the ones to limit free inquiry? Seriously?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I was going to say that “free inquiry” has always been a canard, sort of like “against the special interest groups.” Everybody’s for it until they’re against it. But that’s overly cynical. I really don’t think a publisher that chooses to reject certain viewpoints is telling anyone else to stop publishing their opposing viewpoints. In fact, from a business standpoint, you hope the people you disagree with keep publishing so you can keep refuting, so to speak. If everybody had all the same knowledge and the same inferences there would be nothing to say.
Pretty sure IVP gets that. Not clear at all that SBL does.
(Also, someone sent me the joint statement link via email. So passing the thanks on to them.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion