Tuesday, May 17, 2005
[*] *ANOTHER* Letter to communio sanctorum
To the Editor:
Let's make sure somebody at Communio is checking facts, shall we? It was inevitable that one of you would defend Dr. Paul Owen's endorsement of Millet's book, but the least Mr. Johnson should have done was to check some of his details.
Mr, Johnson makes some pretty clear mistakes about the Dever book:
(1) The first is that it is not yet in print -- so that it may or may not raise a future uproar, but the reality is that it's not even available to the public.
(2) The second point is that it does not represent Eerdman's history but its future path. And that path, for better or worse, turns out to be in the same footsteps as the publication of Millet's book.
(3) The last mistake I will indicate in Mr. Johnson's use of Dever's book is that it is hardly a book about orthodoxy but about "folk religion" -- that is, the things some people in Israel practiced or believed, not about the central matter of Mosaic/temple worship of Yahovah.
It is also important to note -- which Mr. Johnson did not -- that the most vocal critics of Eerdman's choice to publish Millet's book have ministered in evangelizing Mormons for decades and "follow the literature" (so to speak) on that subject. Dever's book is a little outside the normal circles of those ministries and of the ministries most vocal in criticizing Eerdman's decision to publish Millet's book. The criticism that they are "ignoring" Dever's book but piling on to Millet's book is a little like criticizing Mr. Johnson for not being abreast of the new flavors of Gatorade coming out on the market when he's clearly not an expert on sports drinks but on coffee.
Frank Turk
Let's make sure somebody at Communio is checking facts, shall we? It was inevitable that one of you would defend Dr. Paul Owen's endorsement of Millet's book, but the least Mr. Johnson should have done was to check some of his details.
Mr, Johnson makes some pretty clear mistakes about the Dever book:
(1) The first is that it is not yet in print -- so that it may or may not raise a future uproar, but the reality is that it's not even available to the public.
(2) The second point is that it does not represent Eerdman's history but its future path. And that path, for better or worse, turns out to be in the same footsteps as the publication of Millet's book.
(3) The last mistake I will indicate in Mr. Johnson's use of Dever's book is that it is hardly a book about orthodoxy but about "folk religion" -- that is, the things some people in Israel practiced or believed, not about the central matter of Mosaic/temple worship of Yahovah.
It is also important to note -- which Mr. Johnson did not -- that the most vocal critics of Eerdman's choice to publish Millet's book have ministered in evangelizing Mormons for decades and "follow the literature" (so to speak) on that subject. Dever's book is a little outside the normal circles of those ministries and of the ministries most vocal in criticizing Eerdman's decision to publish Millet's book. The criticism that they are "ignoring" Dever's book but piling on to Millet's book is a little like criticizing Mr. Johnson for not being abreast of the new flavors of Gatorade coming out on the market when he's clearly not an expert on sports drinks but on coffee.
Frank Turk
0 comments:
Post a Comment