Judy Brown, IVP, and Responses
9 comments | Permalink
Regarding the IVP book situation (which I blogged on here and here). I wrote to the co-editors of Discovering Biblical Equality, Ronald Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, asking them if they had known of Rev. Brown's crime and sentence before the publication of the book. If they had answered in the affirmative, I believe it would have been an ethical lapse to proceed with publication. On the other hand, if they answered in the negative, it would clear away any suspicions, rumors, or misperceptions about them. I wanted to give them a chance to clear the air.
I appreciate their timely responses. Here they are:
I am deeply saddened to hear of the tragic events mentioned in your article. I learned of these for the first time yesterday, Thursday, April 7, 2005.
Sincerely,
Ron Pierce
* * *
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis
April 9, 2005
I had no communication from Rev. Brown after July 2003, nor did I hear about these matters from any other source. I had no knowledge of the allegations against Rev. Brown until April 7, 2005, when InterVarsity Press informed me of them. I was shocked and grieved to learn about this situation. I support IVP's decision to cease publication of Discovering Biblical Equality until a revised edition of the book can be prepared without Dr. Brown's essay.
As far as I'm concerned, the question of the responsibility of the publisher and editors is essentially over. I'm sure that the editors and the publisher would agree that, in retrospect, it is strange that they heard nothing of this until the publication of the book. And yet at the same time, the fact is that they hadn't, and obviously couldn't be held responsible for continuing to publish Rev. Brown's essay since they had no knowledge of it.
Some reflections:
I am a committed complementarian. I think the issue is important, not secondary, for the health of the church. A correlary to this is that I don't want egalitarianism to succeed as a vision for men and women in the church. But this does not entail that I take any joy in Rev. Brown's fall. I grieve for her and for those she has damaged with her actions. I pray that God would grant her mercy and peace, and that through her repentance the church would lovingly discipline and retore her.
I commend InterVarsity Press for how they have handled themselves. Blogging is a new world where anyone with a modem can bring things to light. As has happened numerous times throughout the past year or so, the mainstream media has chafed at this democratization of information. The thinking is the old rules still apply, and that in ignoring the situation the questions will go away. IVP showed integrity and modeled how to respond. They responded quickly to my questions, and they took the appropriate action by pulling the current version of the book from circulation. This is a costly move for them (reindexing, repagination, retypsetting, etc), but it was the right thing to do.
Finally, the question has been raised in the comments about the connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality. There is a legitimate question about logical implications. But I would urge caution in raising it in this situation. This is a single, tragic incident. Little can (or should) be made from it alone.
I appreciate their timely responses. Here they are:
I am deeply saddened to hear of the tragic events mentioned in your article. I learned of these for the first time yesterday, Thursday, April 7, 2005.
Sincerely,
Ron Pierce
* * *
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis
April 9, 2005
I had no communication from Rev. Brown after July 2003, nor did I hear about these matters from any other source. I had no knowledge of the allegations against Rev. Brown until April 7, 2005, when InterVarsity Press informed me of them. I was shocked and grieved to learn about this situation. I support IVP's decision to cease publication of Discovering Biblical Equality until a revised edition of the book can be prepared without Dr. Brown's essay.
As far as I'm concerned, the question of the responsibility of the publisher and editors is essentially over. I'm sure that the editors and the publisher would agree that, in retrospect, it is strange that they heard nothing of this until the publication of the book. And yet at the same time, the fact is that they hadn't, and obviously couldn't be held responsible for continuing to publish Rev. Brown's essay since they had no knowledge of it.
Some reflections:
I am a committed complementarian. I think the issue is important, not secondary, for the health of the church. A correlary to this is that I don't want egalitarianism to succeed as a vision for men and women in the church. But this does not entail that I take any joy in Rev. Brown's fall. I grieve for her and for those she has damaged with her actions. I pray that God would grant her mercy and peace, and that through her repentance the church would lovingly discipline and retore her.
I commend InterVarsity Press for how they have handled themselves. Blogging is a new world where anyone with a modem can bring things to light. As has happened numerous times throughout the past year or so, the mainstream media has chafed at this democratization of information. The thinking is the old rules still apply, and that in ignoring the situation the questions will go away. IVP showed integrity and modeled how to respond. They responded quickly to my questions, and they took the appropriate action by pulling the current version of the book from circulation. This is a costly move for them (reindexing, repagination, retypsetting, etc), but it was the right thing to do.
Finally, the question has been raised in the comments about the connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality. There is a legitimate question about logical implications. But I would urge caution in raising it in this situation. This is a single, tragic incident. Little can (or should) be made from it alone.
posted by JT at Sunday, April 10, 2005
9 Comments:
Did you get to attend the CBMW seminar with Dr. Grudem and CJ Mahaney a couple of months ago? Great stuff! You can read my blog post about it - here -
MrCLM
JT,
This whole incident is a mini-version of the blogosphere's expose of the 60 Minutes' debacle. Indeed, bloggers have an important new media role. Maybe CT will have a new year-end category like Time magazine did with Power Line bloggers, John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson, "blog of the year." I suspect that your name may appear in the brief CT news article about Judith Brown and the IVP book. What is it about blogs and Minneapolis?
I am delighted to learn that IVP has responded so promptly to the news once they had knowledge of the matter. In my estimation, they have taken actions that exceeded my expectations. I would have expected that IVP could reasonably reduce the price of the book and insert a disclaimer in each volume as they reset the book for publication. In my opinion, IVP has gone beyond reasonable expectations, at least mine. They have done far more than enough. I imagine that the IVP executives took such drastic measures because of the severity of the sin and the crime, lest anyone draw direct correlation between the subject of the book and the sinful and criminal actions on the part of Judith Brown. By their prompt, decisive, and costly decision IVP will likely see higher sales of the book when it is once again published. I commend IVP for taking such a bold step. It truly exceeded what I thought necessary.
It seems evident, then, that Judith Brown's sinful actions included her failure to notify her editors. IVP, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Ronald Pierce have no particular need to be ashamed for their decisions and actions. What editors of a book for IVP have ever given any thought to the possibility that one of the contributors to a book is a homosexual and has attempted murder? It is now evident that Judith Brown is also indebted morally and ethically to them. The consequences of her sins seem to overflow and injure far more than she imagined. How sad that she has done injury to her editors, to her fellow contributors to the book and to all at IVP also!
ABC
I appreciate your even-handedness in dealing with this issue, Justin. It would be easy to go overboard with it as some had.
I'm a complementarian, but I wonder if dropping the chapter from existence is entirely appropriate. I don't think IVP should seek to make a profit from it, but perhaps making the chapter available online for free would work. Whatever arguments she made in her work should still be presented and debated, since her arguments don't stand on her character. Regardless, I'm thankful I finally got around to ordering the book a couple of weeks ago so I have the full version.
One of the observations made in the initial post was a register of surprise that neither IVP nor the editors heard of the incident before the publication of the book. As a contributor to that book, and as an editor of a book, I am not surprised. I had turned in my contribution some two years or more before the publication of the book. While I did get occasional updates every year or so, it was one-way communication. Neither the editors nor the press would have known what I was up to unless I had informed them (I did make a major international move, so I did inform them). It does not sound like Judy Brown would have desired to inform the either the editors or the press, nor, if she had desired, would she have found it easy. I also would not be surprised if she considered it unnecessary - her article may well have been written before the affair, as well as before the crime. Likewise as an editor I often only heard of events in the lives of contributors (such as death or major disability) long after the event. No, the ignorance of the editors and IVP was to be expected, especially since Salem Virginia (which I know well enough) is not exactly the center of the academic world.
The real issue is whether the book should have been withdrawn. The fact is that "God, Gender and Biblical Metaphor" is not a topic that is dependent upon the character of the author. I welcome the fact that IVP has chosen to err on the cautioius side (avoiding any appearance of evil, so to speak), if it has erred. But I am not at all sure that it was absolutely necessary from an ethical point of view. I have known good evangelical leaders who committed suicide and incest respectively. Their previous good ministry still stood on its merits (including the slogan of the one leader, to which he did not live up, "finish well") along with their publications, even if a cloud hung on their later life. Martin Luther is valued even if he also later recommended extreme and to my mind unethical treatment of peasants and anabaptists.
I must say Justin, this has been a very difficult few posts for me to read. First, I am incredibly grieved by the situation. Secondly, I became incredibly angry at some of your readers and their analyses of the situation.
Being a professing egalitarian I am not at all shocked nor surprised that your readers would talk about egalitarians as if they had no access to this website. But the interesting thing about the web is that ANYONE can see your ruminations that you thought were whispered in the dark. I was appalled at the obtuseness and ignorance of some of the IDEAS asserted by some in the comments section of your April 7th post. If you were in my shoes you would understand how one could easily write those of the so-called “complimentarian” position off as unreasonable and extremist.
I had to walk away from the computer for a while.
Nevertheless, I feel as though I should voice my dissent in general and not give myself to personal attacks where I scorn persons without thoughtfully engaging the ideas. I want to be clear in saying that this comment has no bearing on you or your blog. I respect your ministry greatly and have been challenged and encouraged by much of your work. This comment is directed against some of the formulations I read and will deal with them.
First, complimentarians believe that they are more true to manhood and womanhood because they believe men and women are “different.” However, this “difference” ONLY means that there is a rank of order in authority; therefore, the only “difference” being spoken of is one of hierarchy. Hence, the classic conclusion of complimentarian thinking is to assert that egalitarians do not believe there are ANY differences between men and women.
This is patently false and is easily exonerated by logic and analogy. One, it is logically possible for two human beings to be “different” and “equal.” Two, an analogy that illustrates this is race. A black person is different from a white person in many ways, but this does not entail that white people hold a higher rank in authority over black people and vice versa. Therefore, egalitarians are perfectly consistent in believing there can be complimentarity WITHOUT hierarchy.
Second, the assertion that because Dr. Brown “distorted” the Word of God she was given over to a depraved mind to do what ought not to be done is unreasonable as it is insidious. My disagreement with “distorting” the word notwithstanding, and assuming that she DID distort the word and thereby suppressed the truth, the conclusion of egalitarianism causing violent, murderous homosexual envy is fallacious. It is a well known fact that the famous Princeton theologian Charles Hodge advocated against the abolitionists for the validity of slavery on biblical grounds. This is a sad chapter in an otherwise wonderful theological career. Yet can we conclude from Hodge’s error that because of his distortion of God’s Word that he was suppressing the truth? Can we say that God, OUT OF WRATH, gave him over to a depraved mind? I think not for two reasons:
1) Jesus Christ bore all the punishment for Hodge’s sin on the cross.
and,
2) The salvific exoneration of Hodge’s sin was made by faith ALONE in Christ ALONE by grace ALONE.
Therefore, we must not say that Hodge was “under the wrath of God” unless we are willing to say that his faith was a sham. And if we are to say that his faith was a sham than we must judge him by his works. This we cannot do.
Though some may feel entitled and empowered to judge the authenticity of Dr Brown’s faith (something I do not have the audacity to impugn), I think it must be judged on her sinful actions, not upon her egalitarian moorings. There is so much more involved in the causes of being a homosexual person who is motivated to kill out of envy than simply believing women can be pastors.
Thank you for hearing me out,
Adam
http://ochuk.com
Professor Davids,
Thank you for weighing in on this.
My experience with editorial projects has been different than yours. One of the differences, I suspect, is the lag time between the editing and the publishing. Since DBE was started in 2000 and published in 2004, this is a significant period of time. You are right--it is entirely conceivable, and even understandable in retrospect--that neither IVP nor the editors knew of this. Suprise, though, is subjective, and reading the situation through the lens of my own experience, that's what I felt.
I agree with you that the content of a chapter should not be equated with the content of one's character. A recent example would be Roy Clements (former pastor of Eden Baptist Church, Cambridge), whose writings and sermons were immensely edifying to so many. Leaving his family for another man does not change the good, biblical material from his previous writings.
Many publishers include in their contracts a clause to the effect that if an author is publicly accused of a crime of moral terptitude or found to be in violation of a law, such that it could damage the sale of the book, the publisher has the right to terminate the agreement. I imagine Dr. Brown signed a writer's agreement, which might not have said such a thing. But the principle would still apply, and I believe it is generally wise.
Thanks again for weighing in. May God bless your ministry.
"complimentarians believe that they are more true to manhood and womanhood because they believe men and women are “different.” However, this “difference” ONLY means that there is a rank of order in authority; therefore, the only “difference” being spoken of is one of hierarchy."
This would be a mischaracterization of the complimentarian view, just as egalitarians are often mischaracterized. Can you cite any reference to a popular complimentarian writer who argues the only difference between men and women is authority? The divide between the views is not whether there are differences, but what significance we attribute to those differences. Since Biblical manhood and womanhood has been under attack (by some within and without the church), the primary reaction is to argue for hierarchy. But it doesn't follow that hierarchy is the only difference being promoted.
I agree that at face value it may be consistent to believe the roles are "complimentary without hierarchy." Though, I think the more important question is does that theology correspond to what the Bible teaches
JT, I appreciate the way you have covered this. I, too, was very sad about the Judy Brown's sins. The terrible strain that must have existed (at least for a time) between what she knew was right and what she desperately wanted must have been awful.
As for IVP, it occurred to me that their action of withdrawing the book has ensured that people like me who have recently got the "first edition" will be holding an out-of-date book only weeks after we have bought it. Perhaps sending a free copy of the second edition to all buyers of the first would be good :), or even offering all those who send in their first edition a second edition replacement! Think of that - good public relations, good advertisement of their position on the matter, and a reduction of the amount of now defunct books in the public domain.
I actually think IVP went further than necessary, but it is a good idea to do more than necessary in these situations.
Noah
As an egalitarian, I don't have a lot to add to this thread. I would note that should it come down to a discussion about theology influencing praxis, the topic of hierarchialism leading to male violence against women would find more purchase for me than would the topic of egalitarianism leading to lesbianism / homosexuality. Google "abusive pastors" or "clergy abuse" and the like, and see if you find what I seemed to...
That said, this current posting and responses to it encourage me.
A few years ago, I helped expose Mike Warnke's false story of satanic involvement. We strongly questioned Word records, Logos publishing, and others who were responsible for verifying Warnke's tall tales. More recently, I contributed to a mainstream sociological book edited by Anson Shupe, "Bad Pastors." Shupe did in fact double-check me and the fellowship to which I belong, since my chapter was narrative in nature.
Mike Warnke told people "Jesus saves." True? He also told them he had led 1500 satanists in the late sixties. False. He hadn't led any, or even been one himself (except, again, on a deeper level, if one wants to wax philosophical about "The Father of Lies" and his disciples).
Judy Brown did not write a story about herself. (Well, except in a very deeply indirect way--we all write "about ourselves" on some level, of course, which is why writing is so painful if it is any good.) If she had been writing narrative stuff, her publisher (IVP) would be responsible to double-check the facts of her story. Instead, she wrote about theology, words which would be true or false whether or not she personally had huge sexual/gender issues of her own.
IVP is not required to vet the moral life and actions of every theologian who writes for them. (It becomes more complex if such matters are drawn to their attention.) As another poster mentioned, Brown's arguments, not her actions, are the primary ground of debate. I do applaud IVP for opting to remove the book from circulation and republish it in July (according to their website) without Brown's chapter. But that wasn't ethically required, in my opinion.
Again, I appreciate the quality of dialogue in the current thread. The issue of mutuality vs. hierarchy is one vital to our properly functioning as the Body of Christ.
And yes, please let us all remember to pray for Judy Brown and the Smart family whom she so terribly affected.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home