23AR28-16

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )

pdf = www.bit.ly/3Be4NGf

AR 28:16 - Evangelical publishing's battle of the blurbs

In this issue:
CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING - diminishing honesty in promotional practices

PHILOSOPHY - the pitfalls of "overstating the evidence"

SATANISM - an evil agenda in schools, or just gaming the system?

Apologia Report 28:16 (1,613)
May 10, 2023

CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING

As things stand, "publishing leaders hope authors will receive a 'blurb' from someone with name recognition or clout. The reasoning goes that if readers like an endorser, they're more inclined to buy or read a book they've blurbed." 

   In "The Problem with Christian Book Endorsements," Katelyn Beaty (editorial director, Brazos Press - Baker Publishing imprint) uses a tag line that says it all: "Publishers and authors have played along by pushing celebrity blurbs - but it's time to rewrite the rules of promotion."

   To set the tone, when you think of it, "endorsers have agreed to endorse something that doesn't exist.

   "Authors and agents are simply playing the rules that publishers set, and in Christian publishing - as with all book publishing - it's about who you know."

   To begin with, "Authors pitching a new project will share a table of contents, a sample of their writing, their bio, statistics about their platform, and - always - a list of confirmed or potential endorsers.

   "It's a strange detail, since most trade nonfiction books aren't already written when the author goes under contract with a publisher."

   Beaty reveals that The Gospel Coalition recently "published, then unpublished, an excerpt from the forthcoming book Beautiful Union: How God's Vision for Sex Points Us to the Good, Unlocks the True, and (Sort of) Explains Everything. Readers criticized the author, Joshua Ryan Butler, saying he misconstrued the marriage metaphor in Ephesians 5, making it pornographic, male-centric, and ripe for abuse. ...

   "There's a reason that endorsements come through the marketing team (not editorial): Endorsements are marketing tools, not editorial reviews. ...

   "I decline most endorsement requests, because there's not time to read them and conflicts of interest prevent me from assessing honestly.

   "But authors and endorsers are simply playing a game set by the industry. And now is a good time for industry leaders to consider dropping endorsements altogether."

   The situation has gotten to the point that "some faith-based publishers will write an endorsement for a celebrity who doesn't have time to write it themselves." Beaty makes her point as she discusses how this is done. Christianity Today, Mar 6 '23, <www.bit.ly/3nqB8WT>

   (It certainly seems fitting that Beaty is also the author <www.bit.ly/3NCmBSJ> of Celebrities for Jesus: How Personas, Platforms, and Profits Are Hurting the Church.)

   Meanwhile…

   * Thomas Creedy, Senior Commissioning Editor for IVP/Apollos (UK) concurs with Beaty in "Pastors have admitted to endorsing books they haven’t read. As a Christian publisher, I think change is needed" <www.bit.ly/3NYuh1N> (Premier Christianity, Mar 10, '23). "As Beaty writes, 'our modern conflation of identity and gifting with a personal brand, and the endless quest for platform, has compromised the original mission of Christian book publishing, and many authors besides'. Going forward, Christian publishers need to model a better way by continuing to take risks on gifted debut authors, and working out a way to ensure that endorsers have read the book that is going to be published." He adds: "Christian publishing can perhaps learn something from secular academia here. Most academic presses will have a 'peer review' process - often with an anonymous reviewer, sometimes several. It’s a practice we use at IVP on some of our more technical series - and it’s a great way of catching errors and sharpening a text. I wonder what this could look like for more general books?"   

   * Blogger - and popular author - Tim Challies chips in with "Behind-the-Scenes: Endorsements" (Mar 27 '03), weighing the pros and cons of typical blurbing arrangements (for those not familiar with the process) and concluding: "Does the endorsement system need to be fixed? I don’t really think it does. It may not be ideal, but not much in this world really is. I am convinced that it works well enough and I am not convinced we have a viable alternative." He closes with eight practical suggestions for both readers and authors. <www.bit.ly/3nJ3fRt>

 ---

PHILOSOPHY

"Weaker Assertion → Stronger Argument" by Dolores G. Morris (associate fellow, Kirby Laing Centre for Public Theology, Cambridge) -- We were impressed to read the following at the end of this article: "Dolores is invested in bringing the tools and resources of Christian philosophy to the church at large. She lives with her husband and three children in Tampa...." 

   Her opening example of "bombastic language" coming from a Christian in response to being challenged online could easily fit other contexts besides atheism, as it does here. The same might apply to the consequent reactions: "Some misunderstand the charge and defend the moral character of atheists. Those who do understand largely fall into two camps: the Christians who mock the absurdity of the poor foolish atheists and the skeptics who mock the ignorance of the poor foolish Christians.

   "Little actual dialogue occurs. Almost none of it is edifying. We can and we should do better.

   "Most Christians would agree humility is important. ...

   "But what about epistemic humility? If ordinary humility challenges us to take a reasonable and balanced view of who or what we are, epistemic humility asks us to do the same with respect to what we know. ...

   "Although Christian thinkers whose work I admire sometimes make this claim, I'm increasingly convinced it's the wrong way to go. ...

   "I believe real, objective morality is excellent evidence for God's existence. ... If moral truths are objective, their truth doesn't depend on the opinion of any human person or community. ... (Philosophers call this view 'moral realism.') These real moral values would be an odd fit in an atheistic universe; in a world designed by God, they're exactly what we should expect to find. ...

   "Serious atheistic philosophers are aware of the tension between atheism and robust moral realism. Some respond by rejecting moral realism. Others, though, defend atheistic moral realism. ...

   "What kind of evidence could support objective morality without, in the process, also giving us reason to believe in a Creator God? An atheistic-yet-morally-robust universe seems wildly unlikely; the worldview strikes me as highly implausible. Still, it may be possible."

   Morris observes that "it's a counterintuitive fact that the stronger claim often makes for the weaker argument. Therefore, when we practice epistemic humility and take care not to overstate the case for theism, we actually make the job of the atheistic moral realist more difficult."

   She uses the application that "when a Christian leads with the impossibility of another's view, any possibility at all will suffice to undermine her argument. ...

   "In contrast, it's not at all difficult to defend the claim that God is a better explanation of objective morality than a mindless, naturalistic universe could ever be."

   Morris also finds that "curious skeptics are unlikely even to consider an argument that fails to account for the full range of atheistic alternatives. For the sake of meaningful dialogue, we should choose our words carefully."

   For those not engaging with curious skeptics, another concern "may hit closer to home: the Christian who hears that no atheist can make sense of objective morality is in real danger of finding evidence to the contrary. What happens when an eager, intellectually curious, highly confident Christian discovers the blogs, podcasts, articles, and books that present atheism in a very different light? We know what happens. The inference is easy to make. Well, if they were wrong about this, what else are they wrong about? Why believe any of it?"

   She concludes: "We can avoid these risks by tempering our language with an eye toward epistemic humility." The Gospel Coalition, Mar 8 '23, <www.bit.ly/44s4LI3>

 ---

SATANISM

"'Parents Need to Wake Up': Advocates Sound Alarm About Satanist After-School Clubs Sprouting Across The Country" by Kate Anderson (Daily Caller, Mar 5 '23) -- Anderson begins: "The Satanic Temple [TST] recently announced multiple new after-school clubs across the country, raising concerns from religious advocates about the impact that pushing Satanism on students could have in the future. 

   "TST describes its religion as a 'scientific, rationalist and non-superstitious worldview' and TST's National Campaign Director June Everett told NBC affiliate WAVY that the purpose of the clubs is to go 'to schools where other religious clubs are operating' to provide an alternative. ...

   "[S]tudents are instructed in the seven tenets of TST."

   Anderson quotes the TST: "We only introduce our program in schools that host other religious entities which preach that children are sinners who are going to hell. We want to provide a constructive alternative that helps young minds grow and thrive and engage in pro-social activities."

   "Family Research Council Assistant Director Arielle Del Turco argued that TST isn't interested in establishing 'equal footing' but in undermining religion as a whole. ...

   "Del Turco said that TST's clubs were simply a ploy to get schools to refuse them, so they could claim discrimination in order to 'push Christianity and other religions out of the public square.' Squires also said that TST likely sees students as 'pliable and easily influenced' and would therefore make the 'perfect candidates' to be taught a 'self-destructive worldview.'

   "TST told the DCNF that the rules must be the same for all religious clubs on school campuses.

   "'The law requires that all religious organizations are treated equally and given the same opportunities to host after-school clubs,' a TST spokesperson explained. ...

   "Most recently, TST conflated concerned parents, who protested the Chesapeake club's acceptance, with criminal activity, in a March 2 post on Twitter. ...

   "'Parents need to wake up and understand false ideologies are everywhere and they must train up their children to follow the one true God of love, not one of evil and destruction,' Nance concluded.

   "TST argued that the increased 'visibility' provided by the after-school clubs would 'inspire greater compassion for others' and 'promote the use of reason where people are content to abide by anecdotal experiences and superstition.'" <www.bit.ly/3padzlM>

   Having watched the development of TST over the years, we think Del Turco (above) may be on the right track. This situation reminds us of "religious" groups in the past that, wanting to have drugs allowed in their "worship" experiences, have sought government recognition to legitimize their activities. Similarly, efforts by other quasi-religious groups have tried to organize in order to achieve tax-exempt status from the IRS in what appears to be a blatant effort to either gain financial advantage under false pretenses on the one hand or, to encourage the revocation of tax-exemption for all religious groups.

   For context, see this useful backgrounder by Gospel Coalition senior writer Joe Carter: "9 Things You Should Know About Modern Satanism" <www.bit.ly/41hfjXO>, and one journalist's dive into TST founder Lucien Greaves' purported motivations (and weaknesses in Religion News Service's coverage of the same). <www.bit.ly/3nJzv6Q>

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )