The West/Westmoreland-White cage match: a review and a challenge
I really, really, really should not wade into the middle of this. However, I am not exactly in “conflict avoidance” mode this week. In fact, I am in “call a spade a spade” mode this week, and I’m not as wise as Patrick McCullough. So here goes.
In a post about women female biblobloggers (come on, people, “women” isn’t an adjective), Pat wrote:
Michael [Westmoreland-White] also encourages his readers, if they be female bibliobloggers or know of some, to “tell either Pat or Jim [West] (the latter can get you more traffic)”. Hmmm…. well, I guess it’s true, Jim being the hub of biblioblogdom that he is! But, as the old Jesus saying goes, the higher trafficked blogs shall be last and the lesser frequented blogs shall be first, right? ;)
Michael felt a need to explain himself, apparently, and in a comment on Pat’s post, Michael wrote:
Pat, I was thinking of Jim’s role in hosting the bibliblogs site and doing the monthly biblio-blog interviews. That service has increased traffic for many.
It DOESN’T make Jim brilliant, etc. and after seeing him give yet ANOTHER rant trying to “defend” cessationism, the view that all the “dramatic” spiritual gifts ended with the canonization of the New Testament, I am beginning to think that graduate studies were wasted on him.
When is the last time any of us have seen Jim actually make a careful exegetical argument? For a guy who rants about dillentantes constantly, he doesn’t show any of the exegetical skills of the scholars he admires–at least, not on his blog, he doesn’t.
Naturally, Jim responded, in part as follows:
What’s he angry about? Well evidently he’s mad that he hasn’t bothered to read any of my exegetical work and because he imagines that a blog is the same thing as a book, article, essay, or review in print. Further, he’s unhappy that I have the brass to suggest that his mumbling (or anyone’s mumbling) in some mystical, private, indistinct ‘prayer language’ is theologically insulting, separatist, and biblical unfounded. And he’s doubtless upset that I don’t grant homosexual practice the same level of open armed acceptance that he wishes to, in spite of any sort of sensible reading of Scripture to the contrary.
So, rather than spend the money to buy a book and read careful exegetical work, he would rather pretend to have read everything I’ve written and then pass his all knowing, all seeing judgment against and upon it. And he would rather to pretend that a blog is the proper venue for meticulous work. And he would like all and everyone to believe that he alone has insight into theology, church history, dogmatics, and exegesis.
Okay, now before I go on, I should probably say that I am actually closer to Jim than to Michael on the specific issue (cessation of miraculous “gifts of the Holy Spirit”—you should be able to guess that, knowing that I’m in the Churches of Christ and Jim’s a Baptist; if he’d just give up his silly piano and creed … aw, never mind). But that isn’t really what concerns me here. In the post quoted above, Jim seems to imply that he has written an exegetical work—either a book, article, or essay (reviews aren’t “exegetical work”)—on the subject. I’d just like to know where it is. In fact, I’d like to know which of his works Jim would like us to consult to find his “exegetical work.” Here are the possibilities:
- [Bible Book Name]: For the Person in the Pew (Quartz Hill Publishing). The practically self-published Person in the Pew series is explicitly aimed at a lay audience. Now I should very quickly admit that I haven’t read any of these except for the Ecclesiastes portion of the new one on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. However, there’s nary a footnote to be found in the Ecclesiastes commentary, and the text of the ASV takes up more than half of the 38 pages devoted to Ecclesiastes. On p. 16 readers are treated to this
exegeticaleisegetical gem: “The noun ‘king’ can also be translated ‘ruler, instructor’. Thus it is not necessary to say that the writer was a king—it is also possible to translate with ‘I, Qoheleth, was an instructor in Jerusalem’.” This claim that מלך admits of the translation “instructor” is not supported by any documentation, and is not supported by BDB or BHS Wörterbuch, the two sources I have available to me right at the moment. - “Jesus the Reformer,” Journal of Biblical Studies 6.2 (2006) 7–9 is less than three pages long and doesn’t really plumb any exegetical depths. There is some Greek text here from a couple of gospel passages, true, but no extensive argumentation. Jim, do you want us to judge your exegetical work by this article?
- “Biblical Archaeology Review: Friend or Foe?” (online article at The Bible and Intepretation) presents no exegetical arguments; it’s just a diatribe.
- “The Copenhagen Boomerang” (also found at The Bible and Intepretation) likewise presents no exegetical arguments, but presents Jim’s opinion about historiographical method very briefly, and in fact the central claim, that the writers of ancient Israel’s texts did not intend to write history, is not actually substantiated by any argumentation in the (very brief) article; again, it’s a diatribe, not an argument, and certainly not an exegetical argument.
- “A Very, Very, Short Note in Response to James K. Hoffmeier,” Hiphil 2 (2005) is exactly what the title says, and the topic is not exegetical, but treats the difference between “chat rooms” and “mailing lists.” It is not even an article, but a “letter to the editor” (the editors placed it in the “Nuts and Bolts” section).
- “The Bible in the Pew: Congregations and Critical Scholarship from the Pastor’s Perspective” (not available online without a subscription to The Expository Times) contains nothing exegetical, but merely presents your own opinions about the value of critical scholarship to preaching (and I happen to agree with a number of those opinions, by the way).
- I have not read the “Family Bible Study Sunday School Commentary; March-May 2004″ in the Baptist and Reflector, but since B&R is a “newsjournal” of the Tennessee Baptist Convention, I’d be surprised to find “careful exegetical arguments” there. Of course, my genre-based expectations might be wrong.
- “Huldrich Zwingli and Open Theism” is not a published article, but a “comment” submitted in response to a previously circulated question, at most edited only for grammar. There is no exegesis here, but only a very brief (< 3 pp.) summary of an aspect of Zwingli’s teaching on providence.
- “Scholars and the James Ossuary: A Reply to Bruce Chilton” (once more from The Bible and Intepretation) has nothing to do with exegesis, but just takes Bruce Chilton to task for underestimating the amount of scholarly response to the James Ossuary controversy (as of Sept. 2003).
- Dictionary articles that haven’t yet appeared cannot, of course, be consulted by us; moreover, dictionary articles are not usually the place one looks for careful exegesis, but rather for an orientation and overview.
Jim, do you want us to treat the For the Person in the Pew series as exemplary of your “exegetical work”?
So, Jim, if you want us to balance your “exegetical work” on the cessationist question against Michael’s arguments, where would you like for us to look? As far as I can tell, the only thing you’ve “published” that could even be remotely relevant is … well … nothing, since there is apparently no 1 Corinthians: For the Person in the Pew. Perhaps there is something in Systematic Theology: Theology for the Person in the Pew? Can we find a substantial, sustained, exegetical engagement with the texts relevant to cessationism somewhere in its 119 pages?
One last note: I fully realize that this post could be taken as rude, as picking a fight, as picking on Jim, or just generally being a pain in the posterior. But at the moment, due to factors that have nothing whatsoever to do with Jim or Michael or Pat, I am sick to death of holding my tongue when hard truths cry out to be spoken. So here is my challenge to Jim: either show us where you have previously published your “exegetical work” on the topic at hand (in this case, cessationism, but it could be anything), or stop ranting and start arguing, in the best of senses. Of course I have no “standing” or “authority” to make such a challenge, except as a fellow another (must … avoid … gender … bias) “biblioblogger” who does think, contrary to Jim’s assertion, that a blog can be a place for serious, meticulous work—and that arguments should be made, not merely posited.
9 comments Christopher Heard | biblical interpretation (methods), blogging
I’m tempted to say “Fight! Fight! Fight!” in the old cry of the British school playground. As someone who Jim has also dismissed as “not a biblio-blogger” (despite engaging in some exegesis on my blog) I have a passing interest in this fight. Can I watch? Please!
Well, I talk about projection all the time. Rants and diatribes (especially against dilettantes) are ways of projecting one’s own problems onto others.
Judging by his latest post, it looks like Jim doesn’t really have an answer for you. I shouldn’t say this (and I have many more pressing issues with which I should be spending my time), but–what the hell.
Moving away from what I think could be a rather nasty personal confrontation, I do think there is an important issue to be addressed here.
How and in what ways do ‘professional’ biblical scholars intersect and interact with other interested parties? (Just to be clear: I assume CH is a professional biblical scholar because he is employed as one, holds the requisite degrees and publishes in peer-reviewed journals.) I agree with you that biblio-blogging is or can be a worthwhile activity that should rise to the same level of scholarship present elsewhere in the academdy. Until Jim is willing to publish his ideas anywhere else (other than the tellingly-named DRJimWest…site), his claim to ‘professional’ status is suspect at best.
The larger question is why so many professional biblicists take Jim’s site with such seriousness?
P, I think one of the reasons why “so many professional biblicists take Jim’s site with such seriousness” is that Jim was one of the first to really attract attention to a blog about biblical studies. Even if one might come to conclude that Jim doesn’t actually do much in the way of biblical studies on his blog, it’s indisputably the case that some of the “biblioblogs” that exist today exist precisely because their authors saw something “inspirational,” perhaps not in Jim’s content but in his use of blogging as a medium to put forward ideas. Also by keeping a list of biblioblogs and running the “Blogger of the Month” interviews, Jim does us Bible bloggers a service by helping us know about each other. Therefore, some of us feel a certain debt of gratitude to Jim, even if he occasionally bugs or even outrages us with various tirades.
[...] to answer the question? It’s no surprise that Jim West has responded on his own blog to the challenge I put forth earlier tonight. If you don’t know the background, please read that post first. [...]
Hey! I just found out about this. I should clarify: I have not made on my blog or any other any sustained exegetical argument for the continuation of glossalalia or other charismata. Nor did I have only this in mind when I questioned Jim as an exegete.
What I have in mind is his tendency to give sweeping conclusions without any arguments and then to accuse any who disagree with him of not believing the Bible (which is ironic for a Bultmannian). There are a number of issues where he has done this, from arguing for female pastors (I agree, but Jim’s arguments are still poor), to denouncing all people like me who are inclusive toward sexual minorities (I have slowly been blogging an exegetical and hermeneutical case–realizing the burden of proof is one this deviation from tradition–and invited Jim repeatedly to engage with me; he has not), to cessationism, etc. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree, but I never see an argument on his blog.
While I share Chris’ concern about self-published books, I am open to the idea that they might show exegetical strengths. I only said that he didn’t do this on his blog.
I did see one paper Jim presented at an ETS meeting (listed on his old website) that was against the “open view of God.” I have concerns about this theology myself–but Jim’s “argument” consisted of claiming that this theology would conflict with Zwingli and so couldn’t be right. I was less than impressed.
I shouldn’t have said anything on Pat’s blog, but I was feeling irritable that day. Jim is so regularly dismissive of all who disagree with him–and it is not easy to tell when he is being humorous and when he is just being mean and nasty. At any rate, I found this all a bit much from a man who constantly raves about “dilletantes.”
I trust, of course, that no one will blame Michael for anything that I said! Michael, I realize that you were not limiting your question to glossolalia; I focused on that only for convenience. As you wrote in a comment elsewhere, “Pick a topic.”
Jim West is also notorious for deleting all critical comment from his “Comments” section (which is why there rarely ever are any comments appended to his posts). So he will attack and accuse but won’t allow those accused to defend themselves on his blog.
Chris, one note: You didn’t need to cross out “fellow” to avoid gender bias. As my VERY FEMINIST teacher, Dr. Molly Marshall, points out, “fellow” has no masculine connotations in origin. It is only in 20th C. slang usage (e.g., “Hey, fellows,”) that “fellow” takes on any masculine interpretation. None of the female members of e.g., the Westar Institute (whatever one’s view of said Institute), for example, need cringe at being called a Jesus Seminar Fellow, etc.
Now, back to regularly scheduled rants. :-)