A Disturbing Trend

Tim: You mentioned being shocked at how many Christian publishers are becoming more driven by the bottom line. I agree it’s unfortunate when that’s true about a publisher—it shouldn’t be the case. However, Marty is correct—the profit margins in publishing are so unbelievably small that a publisher DOES have to make sure large numbers of books sell in order to stay afloat. The great expense of publishing a book nowadays makes it very, very difficult to justify publishing and keeping in stock a book that sells in small quantities—unless, of course, you’re able to offset that in other ways (keep you company very small, remain a nonprofit ministry that can ask for donations, etc.).

What I think is even more shocking than the bottom-line problem is the magnitude of theological ignorance among those who head Christian publishing houses. Some of the CEOs and presidents lack the discernment necessary to publish solidly biblical books. The gatekeepers to the Christian reading community are too careless about whom they allow to feed the sheep.

I’ll make just one comment regarding what Steve Camp has posted. The mere fact a Christian publisher is still privately owned does not necessarily make it any better than a Christian publisher that is owned by a nonChristian corporation.

There are some privately owned Christian publishers who are just as bottom-line driven as a secular company, and there are some that are Christian in name only and show little or no biblical discernment in what they publish. My encouragement to Steve is that there’s quite a bit more to the equation than just the matter he has brought up.

Moreover, if Steve Camp believes that all the publishing decisions made at Zondervan or Thomas Nelson are okayed or vetoed at a secular headquarters over and above the Christian publisher, he is incorrect. Some influence may be exerted from above, but it is rarely an absolute influence. I fear Steve Camp is imposing his experience from the Christian music industry upon the Christian publishing one.

Ellen: You’re right that there’s nothing wrong with a Christian company making a profit. After all, that’s what helps keep the company afloat, pay the salaries, and enables growth so the company can do more. There is nothing unbiblical about making a profit.

You then asked, “Where to draw the line?” Well, the line isn’t easy to draw or discern, but there are two considerations here: 1. The motive for making a profit. It’s very difficult to determine another person’s motive. But in Christian ministry, the supreme motives should always be to glorify God and stay true to His Word no matter what. The bottom line should stay exactly there—at the bottom, not anywhere near the top. 2. While there’s nothing wrong with making a profit, there IS something wrong with setting prices unreasonably high out of greed.

With both considerations, we’re talking about matters of the heart, which makes it hard to “draw a line” so to speak. But we who are believers should always examine our motives and reasons when it comes to money and business, and make sure that we are doing what is right and honorable. It’s so easy for us to rationalize when it comes to our motives or reasons, and we need to caution against that.

Regarding Steve Camp’s perception that secular publishing houses drive the direction of the Christian imprints under them…it’s possible that’s the case in some places, but it most definitely is not the case in others. In fact, when it comes to Random House and WaterBrook, a press release this morning affirmed, “WaterBrook is an editorially autonomous division of Random House’s Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group.”

Indeed, my contacts within the industry and my own personal experience affirm that this is the case.

Yes, a secular company will place pressure on its Chrsitian imprints to garner bottom-line results. But in at least some cases (if not most), interference with the editorial content is nonexistent or extremely minimal.

I say this not because I want to contend with Steve Camp, but because it’s important that we have the facts straight before we hurl any criticisms.

Steve: Thanks for responding to my comment, and I appreciate your invitation to give my thoughts on the yoking of partnership with unbelievers. Right now time constraints prevent me from giving my answer at this moment (it would take some time to type it all out), but I’ll try to get to work on it (may be a while).

In the meantime, I would still contend you don’t necessarily have your facts correct, and you’ve attempted to sidestep that by saying pragmatic discussions don’t get us anywhere (a point I basically agree with, by the way). For example, consider this one statement you made earlier: “It’s very sad when Zondervan sold its soul to Rupert Murdock. Zondervan since then has published the TNIV—a gender neutral Bible; and has been mostly responsible for publishing the lion-share of the ECM material.”

Very clearly, you have posited a cause-effect relationship here—that since Zondervan went under Murdoch (correct spelling), it has published the TNIV and lion’s share of the ECM material.

However, if you do your research, I believe you will find confirmation that the seeds for Zondervan’s involvement with the TNIV and ECM were not necessarily sowed by HarperCollins or Murdoch, but rather, go back to earlier years and that executives and others at Zondervan had already evidenced relativistic and ecumenical leanings before the HarperCollins purchase. Also key is that Zondervan has long operated more as a business than a ministry—again, this goes back to before HarperCollins came along.

When it comes to the books you see being produced by Christian publishing hosues, by and large it is professedly Christian businessmen at the top who are making these decisions, along with editors, etc. within the staff itself. Many Christian publishing houses have fallen quite well on their own—there’s no need to point the finger of blame to those particular houses that are owned by secular firms.

Much of the bad fruit we see coming from Christian publishing houses today cannot be blamed on ownership by secular corporations, but by the fact the church in America is in such poor spiritual health. Zondervan’s decisions to do ECM books didn’t come from above, it came from being convinced by those within the ECM that this is what today’s church needs.

Clarification: I wrote, “Many Christian publishing houses have fallen quite well on their own—there’s no need to point the finger of blame to those particular houses that are owned by secular firms.”

That should read, “Many Christian publishing houses have fallen quite well on their own—there’s no need to point the finger of blame to secular firms that happen to own Christian publishing houses.”

Moosiecat: ECM=Emerging Church Movement

Captain Planet: I’d be careful about saying Steve Camp has expounded poorly on the text unless you’re able to defend specifically where the shortcomings are. I think he’s actually done a pretty good job of expounding the text, and that the difference between me and him is largely in the realm of how that text is applied.

The reason I called into question his comment about Murdoch and Zondervan is his cause-effect statement reveals a simplistic view that’s going to be extremely difficult for him to back up with any evidence, and seriously neglects to take into account more significant factors regarding the direction Zondervan’s pubishing program has taken.

Tim: I have a quick question for you. As you know, Steve Camp asked a gracious question that I intend to answer when time allows, and I’m already formulating that answer in my mind now. But it has the potential to get long. I’m going to try to keep it as short as possible. But if it’s too cumbersome for me to answer here, let me know. I’m fine with whatever your preference is.

First, I want to say thanks to Tim Challies for providing this forum for discussion about the whole matter of secular companies owning Christian publishing houses. He appropriately titled his blogpost “An Alarming Trend,” and in bringing up Random House’s recent acquisition of Multnomah, has allowed for interaction on a matter of significant concern to people like me, Steve Camp, and others.

Because of time constraints, I’m going to have to break my answer down into parts. First I’m going to respond to Steve Camp’s invitation to share my thoughts on 2 Corinthians 6:14, which says, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.”

The proper application of this passage requires that we understand what Paul is saying and not saying. What kind of separation is he talking about here? Paul isn’t advocating that Christians completely withdraw from the world. It’s not a command to refuse associating with unbelievers. Note the distinction Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 and particularly what he says at the end of verse 10—for us to refuse to associate with unbelievers would require us to “go out of the world,” which is not what Paul asks believers to do. We cannot neglect our responsibility to fulfill the great commission and make Christ known to unbelievers.

Moreover, if Paul were calling for complete disassociation, he would be contradicting his encouragement that a believer STAY in a marriage to an unbeliever as long as it’s possible to do so (1 Corinthians 7:12-16).

The phrase “yoked together” is key here and hearkens back to Deuteronomy 22:10, which prohibited the Israelites from yoking together an ox and a donkey. Such a mismatch of animals would make it impossible to plow effectively. To yoke together speaks literally of binding together two things that don’t belong together. In 2 Corinthians, Paul then goes on to say that righteousness, light, and Christ have nothing in common with wickedness, darkness, and Belial. Contextually, it’s clear Paul is talking about spiritual endeavors, or work that is done for God. Believers and unbelievers should not be bound together in partnerships that permit a shared responsibility in the work of ministry.

That’s what the passages says…next, when I have a chance, a word about application.

Before we can determine whether 2 Corinthians 6:14 applies to a given real-world situation, it’s crucial that we answer two questions jointly:

1. Who are the parties that are being “yoked together”?
2. What is the purpose of the association?

Only when we answer both questions jointly will we know whether or not we have a situation that requires us to heed 2 Corinthians 6:14. Too often, when 2 Corinthians 6:14 is incorrectly applied, it’s because we didn’t take into consideration the entirety of what Paul is commanding in the text. Let me demonstrate:

First, there are some who say, “So what if a Christian publisher is owned by a secular company? If the secular company makes it possible for the Christian literature to reach a larger audience, all power to them!” Those who take such a stand are disregarding question #1 above and don’t care that a believer and unbeliever have been yoked together in a spiritual endeavor, which goes against Paul’s injunction that we NOT be unequally yoked in such situations. Such pragmatism (the end justifies the means) is clearly unbiblical.

Second, there are those who say, “If the Bible forbids us to be unequally yoked, then we should not have non-Christians repair our cars, perform surgery on us, give us legal advice, etc.” But that disregards the second crucial element in applying 2 Corinthians 6:14. Paul goes on in verses 14-16 and asks four rhetorical questions that make it clear his words about being “unequally yoked” apply strictly to spiritual endeavors—hence his contrasts between light and darkness, righteousness and lawlessness, etc. When it comes to ministry, believers and unbelievers have nothing in common, and therefore should not be unequally yoked. Such an alliance would defile the spiritual effort at hand. But this does not apply to nonspiritual activities. Steve Camp is correct when he states, in #86 of his theses, “It is not unbiblical to consult non-Christian experts in matters of business, craft or trade.”

So before 2 Corinthians 6:14 becomes applicable, you MUST have these two things in place: 1) the prospect of a believer being “bound together” with an unbeliever 2) in a ministry endeavor. Ignore just one of those two, and you’ve opened yourself to improper application. Ignore the first question asked above (who are the parties?), and you’ll end up resorting to pragmatic arguments to justify unequally binding relationships. Ignore the second element (what is the purpose of the association?), and you’ll end up in legalistic isolationism.

That’s my answer to Steve Camp on 2 Corinthians 6:14. Next is the application of all this to the Christian publishing world. I’ll try to wrap this up soon as I’m able.

As I get into the practical application of 2 Corinthians 6:14 to the Christian publishing world, I’ll start by saying I’m in agreement with Tim that the secular acquisition of Christian book houses is a disturbing trend. Yet it’s also disturbing when people make inaccurate statements about the way Christian publishing companies work. In our zeal to apply Scripture correctly, we must make sure we have our facts correct, too.

First, the application of 2 Corinthians 6:14. Paul is prohibiting the binding together of a believer and unbeliever in a ministry or spiritual endeavor. While many Christian publishers today operate more as a business than a ministry and are bottom-line driven, the nature of the products they produce places them clearly within the realm of a ministry. So it should disturb us when nonbelievers have ownership of an entity whose professed purpose is to glorify God and advance the teaching of His Word. For a Christian publisher to be owned by a secular corporation is to be unequally yoked.

But it’s at this juncture that interesting allegations sometimes enter the fray. For example, Camp stated earlier that “it is sin to submit one’s own ministry to the hands of nonbelievers who, because of the money involved, have the final say on everything. Do not think for a moment that a large publishing house buys a Christian one, pays millions for the company, and then says, ‘Just go and do whatever you want to do….’ It doesn’t work that way.”

While I cannot vouch for all secular-owned Christian publishing companies, I can say there are definitely a number in which secular owners do NOT have “final say on everything.” And when it comes to the direction of publishing programs, they say very little or nothing at all. While the secular corporations expect fiscal accountability (which is to be anticipated), the actual operation of the Christian publishing house and the decisions about which authors and books to publish are all handled in-house. When it comes to the publishing program and book choices, a number of secular-owned houses operate autonomously. Camp’s statements about “final say on everything” and “it doesn’t work that way” simply do not apply when it comes to companies such as Zondervan and WaterBrook. (By the way, Stan Gundry speaks for Zondervan on this matter in a Biola Connection interview summer of 2005.)

That such editorially autonomous setups exist doesn’t make a secular-owned Christian publishing house more “sanctified” in any way. Again, such an arrangement 1) violates 2 Corinthians 6:14, and 2) all too likely to push the Christian publishing house toward being bottom-line driven (if it wasn’t already).

An earlier comment was also made that gave the impression there’s a cause-effect relationship between HarperCollins’ ownership of Zondervan and Zondervan’s publication of the TNIV and ECM resources.

In actuality, International Bible Society (IBS) spearheaded the whole TNIV effort. They initiated and carried out the translation work. In addition, Zondervan already had an established relationship with the IBS because Zondervan had published the NIV (of which IBS is the copyright holder). So, if we’re going to blame an enemy for “infiltrating the camp,” let’s point to the correct one—which, in this case, is IBS, not HarperCollins or Murdoch. And as I said earlier, Zondervan’s decisions regarding ECM resources would NOT have been influenced by those from above, but by ECM authors who persuaded Zondervan (and of course, by Zondervan’s belief that there would be enough demand for such books to justify publishing them).

I could give more examples to support my arguments, but let me transition to an important point I believe is too often overlooked in this whole discussion about secular ownership of Christian houses. Keep in mind that Multnomah published The Prayer of Jabez without any help or influence from a secular owner. I don’t need to recount here the problems many of us had with the book. What’s sad is that many books containing questionable contents are being pumped out by Christian publishers of their own initiative, with no prompting from the world. The massive downward slide we see in the biblical and theological quality of the books produced by Christian publishing houses today had its start largely from within Christian circles, not without. Today’s spiritually weak church is producing weak fruit, and this is particularly evident in the Christian book marketplace.

What is needed is not only concern over the fact Christian publishing entities are being unequally yoked with secular owners, but also an urgent plea for Christian-owned publishing houses to exercise greater spiritual discernment and more diligent stewardship of the message God has entrusted to them.

So Christian publishing houses with secular owners are unequally yoked. But what about the authors who work with such publishers? Have they violated 2 Corinthians 6:14? That’s just a couple more brief comments, when I find the time.

Sorry, Tim, for the length of this.

When an author works with a Christian publishing house owned by a secular company, has the author unequally yoked himself or herself with unbelievers? At first blush that may seem the case, but upon closer examination, I cannot help but keep running into a major obstacle that prevents me from reaching such a conclusion.

The obstacle is the fact we’re talking about a case of secondary separation here. As far as I’m aware, the New Testament does not give us clear instruction or a general model for how to handle this level of separation. Keep in mind that from the contractual and practical standpoints, an author’s binding relationship is strictly with the Christian publishing house and not the secular entity above. It is two Christian entities that have yoked together, not a believer and an unbeliever. Contrary to what some may claim, the reality in many cases is that the secular entity above exercises no voice whatsoever in any step of the publishing relationship between an author and the Christian house. Usually that voice from above stays limited to matters of fiscal responsibility and performance on the part of the Christian publisher itself, and the publishing program and editorial decisions are truly autonomous.

In summary, I am very reluctant to apply a primary separation passage to what is clearly a secondary separation issue.

Does this conclusively settle the issue for the Christian author? I don’t believe so. Though Scripture doesn’t specifically address secondary separation, it does exhort the believer to use discernment in all things. Different publishing houses work in different ways and the decision makers within houses have varying levels of convictions (or lack thereof) regarding various biblical truths. Authors should take seriously their responsibility to ask questions and examine the facts to determine whether association with a particular company has the potential to place the author in a position of spiritual compromise.

And such caution and discernment is necessary even when publishing with a Christian-owned company, as evidenced by some of what’s being published today.

The ideal will always be a Christian-owned and Christian-run company. Most definitely caution and discernment are needed in the cases where a secular entity owns the company and thus the publisher is unequally yoked. But to impose the unequally yoked standard upon a secondary relationship, as far as I can tell, goes beyond the clear instruction of Scripture.

In connection with Dana’s comment, I personally know of at least a couple other major evangelical Christian authors who make nothing from their books and put all the income toward ministries. But I cannot name them because they wouldn’t want that information known.

Interestingly, a few years ago at a major event, a major Christian author chastised a room full of Christian publishing executives for “doing nothing” to help third-world missionary endeavors…not realizing that a few of them were already involved in a HUGE way.