Recommended

Publisher Denies Changing Meaning of John Stott Masterpiece 'Basic Christianity'

John Stott's books and framed photos are on display at the reception following the U.S. memorial service at College Church in Wheaton, Illinois, on Friday, November 11, 2011.
John Stott's books and framed photos are on display at the reception following the U.S. memorial service at College Church in Wheaton, Illinois, on Friday, November 11, 2011. | (Photo: The Christian Post)

The publisher of the 2008 edition of John Stott's classic Basic Christianity denies accusations that the edition changes the meaning of the noted evangelist's work.

Recently, author Barton Swaim wrote an essay accusing William B. Eerdmans publishing company of making troubling alterations to Basic Christianity.

This critique included the charge that the 2008 edition changed Stott's original description of atonement in the Christian faith.

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

James Ernest, editor-in-chief at Eerdmans Publishing, wrote Tuesday that Swaim's criticism had "a number of important factual errors in this article, both stated and implied, that could have easily been avoided had he approached Eerdmans for information before publishing."

Influential evangelical preacher and author John Stott dies at the age of 90 on July 27, 2011.
Influential evangelical preacher and author John Stott dies at the age of 90 on July 27, 2011. | (Photo: Langham Partnership International)

Among them, according to Ernest, included falsely attributing the 2008 edition as being the original work of his company.

"Eerdmans is not the originating publisher. Eerdmans stands by our edition; but we did not plan the revision, hire the reviser, or edit his work," wrote Ernest.

"The book originates in the United Kingdom with Inter-Varsity Press (not to be confused with its unhyphenated American cousin, InterVarsity Press). … We receive text from IVP-UK. Eerdmans takes care of the printing and binding work for both U.S. publishers. In the case of the third edition, IVP-US Americanized the orthography and designed the interior."

Ernest also noted that while he did not necessarily disagree with all of Swaim's criticisms with the 2008 edition, he argued that the late Stott "did not see himself as the author of a classic."

"He wanted to — and did — author a little book that served a practical, evangelistic purpose," continued Ernest.

"And, stellar preacher and communicator that he was, he understood that what communicates effectively in one time and place must be changed to communicate effectively in another."

Earlier this week, the publication First Things posted an essay that is part of its May issue titled "Stott Bowdlerized" by Swaim.

In it, Swaim argued that a recently acquired 2008 edition of Stott's Basic Christianity had been dramatically changed both in its wording and in some places its meaning.

For example, Swaim noted that the passages in the 1971 edition of the book and the 2008 version on the doctrine of atonement were considerably different to the point of changing the meaning.

"In the original text, Stott connected the word 'reconciliation' to the word 'atonement' by reference to Paul's use of it in his Letter to the Romans. That connection is enough to jar any modern reader, who likely thinks of 'reconciliation' as a general feel-good sort of bringing together and 'atonement' as some ancient rite involving blood and vestments," wrote Swaim.

"In the updated text, however, 'atonement' is gone altogether. The newer text leaves the reader free (or freer) to think of the reconciliation Christ has accomplished as the sort of therapeutic fence-mending urged on brawling high-schoolers by their guidance counselors."

Swaim went on to argue that while he considered the publisher's intention to release a new edition of Basic Christianity "noble," he felt "the project was a mistake."

"The Basic Christianity people are buying and reading today is a bad imitation of the original. The editor and publisher had no right to transform Stott's book as they did, whether or not the author granted his permission," continued Swaim.

"Good books are precious things that belong as much to their readers as they do to their publishers and even their authors. That is doubly so in the case of Basic Christianity, a work that has engaged its readers at the most intimate levels."

Regarding the Ernest rebuttal, First Things Editor R.R. Reno wrote a blog entry that thanked Ernest for pointing out the mistake made by Swaim regarding who originated the 2008 edition.

"I'd also like to point out that Swaim's interest was not in assigning blame. He was defending the intelligence of readers and their desire for language that has poetry, rather than the tone of a memo from Human Resources," wrote Reno.

"He protests against our tendency to let the present banalities swallow up the beauties of the past. It's a protest I'm happy to join."

Was this article helpful?

Help keep The Christian Post free for everyone.

By making a recurring donation or a one-time donation of any amount, you're helping to keep CP's articles free and accessible for everyone.

We’re sorry to hear that.

Hope you’ll give us another try and check out some other articles. Return to homepage.

Most Popular

More Articles