The following landed in my inbox a few moments ago:

From: Jim West [e-mail address removed]
Date: March 24, 2008 9:22:55 AM PDT
To: biblical-studies@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [biblical-studies] list business
Reply-To: biblical-studies@yahoogroups.com

I have removed Chris Heard from the list. I’m no longer willing to tolerate his personal, vindictive, idiotic vendetta. The one thing I’ve learned over the course of 47 years is that the best way of dealing with toxic persons is to have nothing to do with them. Hence, I refuse to have anything to do with Mr. Heard.

This is not a personal attack- it is a statement of fact- and I make it publicly in light of the fact that Mr Heard takes a perverse delight in distortion and I wish list members to hear, from my own ‘lips’ (so to speak) the reason for his removal.

Jim

–
++++++

Jim West, ThD

Since the message above was my first notice of expulsion from the Biblical Studies discussion list, I obviously have no opportunity to inquire further within the discussion list itself. The last message that I posted to the Biblical Studies list was dated March 4, 2008. It was a reply to Jim taking notice of the creation of the Biblicalist, and my entire text read as follows:

To be more specific, the moderators of the Biblicalist do not agree with the proposed bifurcation between “academic” and “confessional,” and created the Biblicalist as a forum in which individuals interested in academic biblical studies can engage in conversation without being asked to bracket their theological/confessional commitments.

Since there are no distortions there, and since that was my most recent post to the Biblical Studies list, Jim must be reacting to something here, on my blog. I’m not sure why anything I say on this blog should result in explusion from the Biblical Studies list; even if I were to use this forum to call Jim all sorts of horrible names, and insult his ancestry—neither of which I have done—I don’t think that should be germane to whether I’m allowed to subscribe to the Biblical Studies list or not.

But I am very curious to know what “distortions” spurred Jim’s decision. If you are curious about this, too, then please continue reading the extended post by clicking the link below. If you prefer not to sift through the boring details, just consider this admittedly defensive. Which of the following sets of actions suggests “vindictiveness” or a “vendetta”: (a) showing one’s disagreement with another by detailing the areas of disagreement, linking to that other’s blog, and allowing, even inviting, the other to interact in blog comments; or (a) showing one’s disagreement with another by disallowing the other’s comments on one’s blog, and by excluding the other from e-mail forums over which one has administrative control?

Given the timing of my removal from the Biblical Studies list, I have to conclude that Jim was reacting to something I posted this morning, and given the content of what I have posted this morning, I must assume that Jim was set off either by my post about The Cult of the Amateur (which would have generated a pingback to Jim’s blog) or my reply to Jim’s comment on another recent thread.

So I’d like to know where these “distortions” lie.

1. In a recent post about ACU’s use of iPhones and iPod touches, I did incorrectly state that Jim had no experience teaching undergraduates. That statement was incorrect, resulting from a faulty conclusion that I reached due to the fact that Jim did not list any such positions on his public, online CV. I Since I have corrected that statement and been very clear about how I reached that faulty conclusion, I don’t really think this qualifies as a “personal, vindictive, idiotic vendetta” or a “perverse delight in distortion.”

2. Jim recently left a comment on the post in which I corrected and explained the error described in item #1. This morning I posted a reply to that comment (I wrote the reply on Saturday, but chose not to post it during Easter weekend).

2a. In that comment, I stated that Jim has a deep capacity for human kindness, when he chooses to tap that well. Is that true or false?

2b. I stated that I believed Jim when he said he doesn’t hate me. Does Jim think I am lying about that belief?

2c. In response to Jim’s claim that he has “never attacked [me],” I stated that I did indeed feel attacked when Jim disallowed (through WordPress moderation) the comments that I tried to leave on his post about ACU’s iPhone initiative, and then when he responded to my own post on the matter with a post entitled “Chris Heard doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” I also said that I felt attacked when Jim demanded an apology and then moderated away the comment in which I tried to offer the relevant correction, saying that I could “spew [my] bile elsewhere.” Since this was a statement about my own feelings, I don’t see how Jim could possibly take it as a distortion, unless he thinks he knows my emotional reactions better than I know them myself.

2.d. I have commented several times—including 2.c immediately above, on Jim’s rejection of comments that I tried to leave on his blog. As Jim put it, “I’m not granting him commenting rights. He can spew his bile elsewhere.” Does Jim deny writing this?

2.e. On a previous incarnation of Jim’s blog, Jim made the claim that systematic theologians can’t do exegesis. When I pointed out that Jim himself had written books entitled Systematic Theology and Biblical Studies—thus suggesting that the same individual can do both—Jim wrote, “He [Chris Heard] is dead to me.” Does Jim deny writing this?

2.f. I quoted Jim as saying, “I usually let what Chris say pass the way of corn in excrement, since it normally has the same value.” Does Jim deny writing this?

2.g. Jim complained about people who haven’t met him offering negative opinions about him. (I’ve never heard Jim complain about people who haven’t met him praising him.) I asked whether Jim has met or talked to any of the people he criticized in the iPhone post, and listed some of those people. Since these were questions, not assertions, I don’t think they qualify as “distortions.” Jim has not yet chosen to answer those questions, at the time of writing.

2.h. In connection with 2.g., I asserted that Jim has made offering opinions about people he’s never met a major theme of his blog. Does anyone who has read Jim’s blog(s) consistently for at least a year disagree with this statement, or consider it a “distortion”?

2.i. I stated that I do not censor comments (except for spam and outright vulgarity), and that I do not suppress blog comments that disagree with me. I further stated that Jim cannot honestly make the same claim. I know this to be true from personal experience, and the quotation above from Jim (“I’m not granting him commenting rights”) demonstrates the truth of my assertion.

3. That about exhausts the possibilities for my comment on the “apology” post. Now let’s turn to this morning’s post about Andrew Keen, the other possible trigger for Jim’s ire.

3.a. I did not mention Jim by name, but referred to him as “a well-known biblicablogger who really despises Wikipedia.” Leaving aside that Jim prefers the term “biblioblogger,” does Jim deny being well-known? Does Jim deny despising Wikipedia?

3.b. I wrote that Jim took notice of a Newsweek article which quoted Andrew Keen, and that Jim himself quoted Newsweek‘s quotation of Keen, saying, “I don’t know who this Andrew Keen is, but I like him!” Unless Jim has deleted his post on that subject, everyone is free to follow the link and see it personally. Does Jim deny writing this post?

3.c. I stated that I stand with Jim against Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron so far as their recent forays into “biblical archaeology on film” are concerned. Does Jim think I’m really a closet Simchaphile?

3.d. I stated that I have actually read Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur (actually, I have listened to it in audiobook format, within the last two weeks). Does Jim think I am lying about this? And by the way, Jim, had you read The Cult of the Amateur before you wrote, “I don’t know who this Andrew Keen is, but I like him!”

3.e. I gave a brief summary of Keen’s assault on Web 2.0′s vision of user-generated content, including blogs. I claimed that many bloggers—including Jim and myself—offer their opinions on the news, politics, sports, movies, music, and so on, even though most of us do not hold journalistic credentials or specialized training in the relevant areas. Most bloggers are not trained journalists, nor film critics, nor sports writers, nor political scientists. I certainly have no formal training in any of these areas, and I have no reason to believe (unless Jim left his Master of Fine Arts in Film Studies off his CV, like his community college teaching experience) that Jim has been trained in these disciplines either. Yet for sharing our opinions about such matters, we would merit Keen’s scorn, because our movie reviews (e.g., I liked The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Jim didn’t) did not come from trained critics and did not go through editorial review. Does Jim deny offering commentary on the news, politics, sports, movies, and music on his blog? Does he have degrees in journalism, political science, film studies, or music theory that he hasn’t revealed to the public? If not (on either count), then he is an “amateur” by Keen’s definition. So am I. So are most bloggers. Does Jim disagree with any of this—either what I’ve said about him, or what I’ve said about myself, or what I’ve said about Keen’s book? Note: I did not criticize Jim for offering his opinions, but pointed out that Keen is critical of such “amateur journalism,” as Keen would call it.

3.f. I pointed out that Keen’s Cult of the Amateur blasts not only Wikipedia contributors, but also persons who self-publish videos through YouTube and books through Lulu. I also linked to Jim’s offerings on Lulu, trying to demonstrate, not subtly, that Jim might cheer for Keen, but that Keen would not cheer for Jim. Does Jim deny publishing books through Lulu, under the Quartz Hill School of Theology imprint? Does Jim think I have misrepresented Keen’s attitude toward YouTube and Lulu patrons? Please note that my comments focused on Keen’s attitude toward YouTube and Lulu distribution, not my attitude toward these venues. My point was that Jim, and I, and almost all other bloggers, fall under Keen’s would-be axe.

3.g. I claimed that Jim had a stronger claim than Simcha Jacobovici to expertise on matters related to the “Jesus family tomb” business. Does Jim disagree?

3.h. I further speculated that if Jim self-produced a YouTube video in which he criticized Jacobovici’s “Jesus tomb” film, Keen himself might prefer the work of Jacobovici, a skilled and credentialed filmmaker. I made it clear that this was speculation, but consistent with Keen’s overall attitude toward YouTube content. Does Jim think that I have misrepresented Keen’s attitude? Please note that I did not say that I would prefer Jacobovici’s slick filmmaking to Jim’s homemade YouTube video or podcast, should he choose to produce one on the Jesus family tomb stuff—I would not.

3.i. I was not kind to Andrew Keen’s oratorical skills in reading his own book aloud for the audiobook production. I do not know if Jim has listened to the audiobook—though I doubt it, since he wrote that he did not know who Andrew Keen was—but I presume that my assessment of the aesthetic quality of Keen’s reading is not what set Jim off. Am I wrong about that?

If you have read all the way to the end, you have shown great endurance. And you will probably think of my entire review here as “defensive.” Yes, indeed. I do feel angry and defensive, and I feel that I have been ill treated in the matter of my Biblical Studies list subscription. I don’t necessarily want to get back on the list at this point; my expulsion does mean fewer e-mails in my inbox, and I have the Biblicalist and this blog as a place to talk biblical studies with the online biblical studies community. Anyway, if you’ve read this far, please accept my apologies for the length and drudgery of this post and my gratitude for “lending me your ears.”