I’m not sure how many people judge a book by the blurbs found on it, but I pray that number dwindles greatly. Because frequently, perhaps more often than not, they are misleading, particularly if they are written by a well-known scholar, author, pastor, etc.
Case in point: a while back Justin Taylor, one of the most popular bloggers in evangelicalism, highlighted a new book put out of IVP, The Roots of the Reformation. The author, G R Evans, is apparently a well respected Cambridge medievalist. Taylor includes in his post 4 endorsements of the book, two of which were particularly glowing:
“G. R. Evans is one of our finest scholars, and she has written a superb book placing the story of the Reformation in the wider context of Christian history. Comprehensive, well researched and readable.”
—Timothy George, general editor, Reformation Commentary on Scripture
“Briskly and breezily, but very efficiently, medievalist Gillian Evans here surveys Western Europe’s changing and clashing views of Christianity from the fourteenth century through the seventeenth century. This large-scale introduction is certainly the best of its kind currently available.”
—J. I. Packer, Regent College
But, a month later and Taylor (admirably) issued a ‘mea culpa‘ for implicitly endorsing this highly-praised book. Why? What changed his mind?
Because an expert on the subject matter of the book in question actually read the book carefully.
Carl Trueman wrote an absolutely devastating review of the book, pointing out numerous (and I mean numerous) embarrassing errors that undermine the credibility of the book, and thus, the author and those who praise it so unreservedly. How devastating is this review? IVP has opted to pull the book off the shelves, revise it (in time for the fall semester, although I wonder if any professor will opt to use it now) and give free ones to those who purchased the 1st edition. You can read their letter here.
Now, I don’t want to overstate the damage done here. No one’s salvation is at stake. There won’t be a generation of scholars who will screw up basic facts about Calvin, Luther and the rest of the reformers. The 2nd edition will fix the errors and the world will move on.
But I have to wonder about the endorsers, particularly the two I quoted. Was Packer right when he said the book is “the best of its kind currently available?” Are the other options so awful that Evans’ book is, in fact, better? I highly doubt it. The better question is: did Packer read the book? Or, perhaps, is Packer qualified to write an endorsement for a book on the Reformation?
Same goes for Timothy George. He said this book is ‘well researched.’ Did George read the book? Is he qualified to make such a claim about the book?
I’m being a bit sarcastic. Both Packer and George are highly qualified scholars. Their credentials speak for themselves. They ought to be able to read a book on the reformation and determine its value for classroom use. But the only real explanation for their high praise is probably the simplest: they didn’t read the book carefully. Trueman can’t be that much better of a scholar to be able to see frequent errors while they are not. If so, they aren’t the scholars we all think they are.
So what’s the point in trusting blurbs for a book? If you can’t trust J I Packer and Timothy George, then who can you trust? I’ve read too many books that received high praise, only to read the book and wonder if the endorsers actually read it. But often times it’s a matter of opinion to a certain degree. In this case, it’s plain and simple. The book had so many errors it has to be pulled off the shelf. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of getting basic facts correct. IVP shouldn’t be the only ones apologizing here.
I’m not the first to note the uselessness (or at least, the limited usefulness) of book blurbs. Nick Norelli makes the same point here. Esteban Vazquez (the only blogger to blog less than me) nail it pretty well here. Or even better, read this.
Anyway, to bring my rant to a close, it’s disappointing to have your suspicions confirmed: sometimes (oftentimes?) endorsers don’t read carefully the book they are endorsing. The quicker we all realize this, the better off we’ll be. But we’ll be even better off if endorsers stop doing it altogether.
The Internet Amp
Posted in Rants, tagged blog comments, bullying, Dan Brown, flaming, homosexuality, internet, Jennifer Wrist Knust, pornography on Tuesday, February 15, 2011| 1 Comment »
I’ve been around the internet for long enough, well before the days when “state-of-the-art” looked like this (flashing N, we hardly knew ye), so I’m not exactly surprised when I come across articles like Jennifer Wrist Knust’s latest opinion article, which dropped my jaw to levels previously reserved only for Dan Brown. Says Knust about Biblical sexuality, “In Genesis, for example, it would seem that God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality.” Where to begin?
While I thoroughly disagree with Knust’s methods, evidence and conclusions in myriad ways, I don’t want to just flippantly dismiss her. The reason is because she attempts to thoughtfully engage with an issue (viz. homosexuality): she actually employs (fallacious) methods, offers (shoddy) evidence, and draws (misguided) conclusions. Discussion can thence proceed.
Not so with many of the “comments” posted after her article, and frankly just about any other comment on a widely read post that deals with the Bible, or Christianity. I’ll paraphrase a few that typify the genre:
“The Bible is a bunch of bunk anyway, with not a shred of evidence to prove it.”
“Christianity: One small voice away from murdering your entire family.”
“When will Christians get over the fact that Jesus is a myth? Get out of the dark ages.”
“Why do I care about what a book written 2,000 years ago on the other side of the world says about anything?”
These “comments” ought to irk and embarrass everyone, no matter their world view. It seems that no world view is free of people who give their world view a bad name. Christians certainly have their fair share. Their contributions are noise at best, and the internet, for good or ill, is an amplifier with a very low signal to noise ratio.
It’s easy to recognize the internet as an amplifier of previously existing conditions. For example, there has been bullying in school since school existed. The internet did not give rise to bullying, it has amplified it, indeed creating the whole new category of “cyber-bullying.” There was pornography addiction in the days when the words “personal computer” would have been an oxymoron. The internet didn’t create lust, it has amplified it. So, it should not surprise me (though it still does) to see naked assertions with inflammatory intent following an article. Incendiaries are no new phenomenon.
There is no desire for interaction or real discussion among those who comment. Exchanges between two or more of these people are most often sets of monologues, with no appreciable purpose other than to deride others, and promote oneself; to be heard, regardless of whether there is anything worth listening to.
For some, it seems that their online personality, thanks in large part to the internet’s precious anonymity, is their id: that unrestricted, raw feeling that they might think, but never say to anyone face to face. This just intensifies issues that are already controversial, and highly flammable. The result is greater polarization on issues and less tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
As a Christian, it is disheartening for me to read much of the religious discourse on the internet, especially in the blog-scape. I come away with a (sinful?) feeling of hopelessness: Where to begin? How in the world could I hope to reach people with Christ if this is indicative of their posture towards Him? Despite God’s Word, which reminds me how capable He is of reaching the hardest of hearts (e.g., Paul), I can also take solace in the fact that if I were to turn off the amplifier in between the brazen comment and the commenter, more often than not I’d find a person just as broken and needy as anyone else in the world, one whose company I would probably enjoy, and certainly one who needs redemption just as much as I do.
Read Full Post »