3 thoughts on “SBL Censors IVP for all the wrong reasons

  1. Alexander Schick

    Dear Prof. Wallace

    I am not a member of SBL but I did send this mail.

    Dear Prof. Kutsko, dear members of the directory board. I am shoked about reading your Ban of IVP from the Annual Convention.

    I have red the open letter from Rev. Dr. Michael F. Bird and I must confess, that I agree totally with the letter of Dr. Bird. And the question is really:

    “How does banning a publisher from the annual conference increase the diversity, free inquiry and expression of SBL?”

    You must change your mind!

    with greetings from Germany

    Alexander Schick


    All the best Alexander


  2. I guess I should have stated that I cannot speak of the liberal/conservative scholarship Of IVP as I can with the SBL and Zondervan. My point was, there is no turning back a journal that went liberal long ago and really does not matter in the grander scheme of things. Let them do as they, please. How about all so-called conservative scholars just abandon them?


  3. For the record, I wrote to the chair of SBL (John F. Kutsko) on this, and got this note back…:

    While many concerned scholars have commented on social media and by email about a supposed ban of InterVarsity Press from exhibiting at the SBL-AAR Annual Meeting, IVP has not been banned or limited in any way at the Annual Meeting or for other matters relating to SBL. At its meeting later this month, the SBL Council will discuss protocols and standards for exhibitors and other groups associated with SBL in the context of ongoing discussions involving academic freedom and the disciplinary standards of discourse the organization fosters. Indeed, IVP was invited to contribute to this conversation. Further, SBL was not speaking for the American Academy of Religion, though any protocols for exhibitors would be drafted in conjunction with it. Finally, SBL values the contribution of IVP, and many SBL members have published with the Press.


Comments are closed.