\n<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t normally respond to critical reviews of my books. I don\u2019t really
\nsee the point. Not everyone likes every book, and that is just peachy as far as
\nI\u2019m concerned. There\u2019s no need to be defensive, and I don\u2019t feel that readers
\nneed my help in deciding whether a review is helpful or not. <\/p>\n
Over the last few years, though, I can only remember responding to two reviews. One was of The Bible Tells Me So<\/em> from 2014 (here<\/a>), and the other of The Evolution of Adam <\/em>from 2012 (here<\/a>). \u00a0<\/p>\n I felt these reviews needed to be called out, not only because of the I was\u2014perhaps naively\u2014expecting every human on the planet to have read my responses, repented of their sins, softened their hardened hearts, and\u2014like Jill and Eustace in The Silver Chair\u2014<\/em>at least tried to internalize their lessons. But, alas, no such luck; since the publication of my most recent book, How the Bible Actually Works<\/em>, I\u2019ve been seeing the same sorts of strategies employed in reviews and social media.<\/em><\/p>\n Perhaps the third time\u2019s a charm. Below is another version of the list of the 12 rhetorical strategies <\/a>that appeared in the 2014 response, and that I would love<\/em> to see my more conservative brothers and sisters do their best at avoiding. <\/p>\n To be clear, these strategies are not the invention or sole property of Furthermore, simply calling out these strategies does not relieve me or any writer of engaging publicly and\/or pondering privately any substantive points of criticism. <\/p>\n And those substantive points would, I am confident, reveal rather important differences in our understanding, not of \u201cexegetical method\u201d or some such thing, but of fundamental questions of existence: <\/p>\n Distracting rhetoric is about scoring points and protecting turf. That will always keep us from getting at the real questions\u2014the questions beneath the questions. <\/p>\n So here are 1. This book is interesting, and I even agree with the author now and then. Unfortunately, he\u2019s completely wrong in anything that actually matters.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Complimenting the author early on, though potentially genuine, can 2. The author is one-sided and biased, and I am here to provide\u00a0the balanced center.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cBalance\u201d is a code word to claim the intellectual higher ground. Painting 3. Back to your homes, folks. Nothing new to see here.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Any perceived doctrinal challenge on the part of the author is neutralized by being called old hat\u2014 nothing more than another \u201cstandard\u201d attack on the Christian faith that has been successfully thwarted by some luminous figure of the past, and therefore can and should be immediately and safely ignored by the masses. The implication is that the author lacks or ignores this knowledge.<\/p>\n The assumption here is that an argument from the past is set in stone and not up for negotiation. Ironically, that is the very posture conservatives take issue with when used by mainstream scholars that appeal to the \u201cassured results of biblical scholarship.\u201d If all we are doing is appealing to our <\/em>heroes of the past to settle present arguments, we are no longer engaged in scholarship but reinvigorating tribal boundaries in the face of a threat. <\/p>\n 4. Not only is the author wrong, but he is obviously wrong.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Related to #3, a passing recognition is given that there is some superficial truth to the author\u2019s deeply troubling observations, but, thankfully, they\u00a0can easily be addressed after a moment\u2019s sober reflection\u2014something the author apparently either does not have the time or inclination for. The author is, in other words, something of a moron.<\/p>\n 5. If the author is right, then my theological tradition is wrong. Therefore, the author is wrong.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The reviewer\u2019s theological views, rather than offered as a perspective<\/em> from which to engage a book, are asserted to be the non-negotiable and self-evident standard for judging the book.<\/p>\n Rarely is the matter put this bluntly (though see the review from 2012 mentioned above<\/a>), but the sentiment is lurking not too far beneath the surface and easy to spot if you\u2019re looking for it. <\/p>\n If being challenged theologically is enough for reviewers to reject an argument, I won\u2019t lose a minute\u2019s sleep. Those reviewers have simply chosen to leave the scholarly playing field and throw stones behind protective walls. But they need to say so, perhaps at the outset of their review, that protection rather than engagement is their driving motive.<\/p>\n 6. Any book on Scripture needs to address issues my community and I think are of central importance concerning Scripture.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nviews expressed, but more so because of the rhetorical strategies these
\nreviewers employed, strategies that are largely defensive and that I have found
\nto be virtually stock Evangelical and Fundamentalist methods of attempting to
\nneutralize points of view they find threatening. <\/p>\n
\nconservative Christians. The hard left can be as unreasonable as the hard
\nright, but that doesn\u2019t excuse their use.<\/p>\nIn fact, we could get to the substantive points more quickly if they weren\u2019t obscured by distracting rhetoric. <\/h2>\n
\n
\nthe 12 rhetorical strategies followed by some comments.<\/p>\n
\nalso be a set-up: by giving the appearance of seeking to be even-handed, it lends
\ngreater credibility to\u00a0damning criticism the reviewer wishes to raise later.
\n\u201cThe reviewer was so fair and sympathetic earlier, so I\u2019m sure these criticisms
\nare just as fair.\u201d<\/p>\n
\none\u2019s own views as representing the balanced, rational, and truly scholarly
\nmiddle functions to present the author as extremist or even incompetent. In my
\nexperience, claiming to offer \u201cbalance\u201d is not a middle ground as much as it is
\na wholly different\u2014shall I say \u201cextreme\u201d\u2014 paradigm founded on diametrically
\nopposite starting points. Claiming to be the voice of calm reason clouds the
\ndeeper issues.<\/p>\n