Is summarizing remarks for/against Christianity in books for sale on topic?

Question

This question and answer by the same person is designed to simply list the opinions of a group of people about the validity of claims made by core Christian cannon. Are such posts on topic? I see no difference between this post and simply writing Q&A's summarizing any literature where individuals or minority groups have made remarks about Christianity, for good or bad. Might as well be a summary of the claims of "The God Delusion", or "God is not great".

Moreover, the end result of these "studies" done by this small group of like minded individuals are conveniently packaged into nice books for sale. I feel that such posts are:

• Advertisements in the capitalistic sense.
• Advertisements of the opinions of the extreme minority, be it for or against (in this case 200-ish people's opinions against some 3+ billion alive today).

Answer 1

To me, this sort of thing is generally on-topic. Asking questions about the writings of a group, especially where they touch on Christianity, is a major focus of this site – it would be rather inconsistent to restrict ourselves to only historical works, or not allow overviews/summaries of particular works.

That said, here are a few things to watch out for:

• Asking for a review of an entire work can be too broad. Asking for a review of the theology of the Pilgrim's Progress would be huge, but asking if it supports predestination is much more reasonable. Closing as too broad can thus be appropriate.
• Just because something is on-topic doesn't mean that it's a great question:
  • If the material is already easily accessible elsewhere, like Wikipedia, downvote it for lack of research.
  • If the question is simply uninteresting to you, or you don't think it's useful, downvote it.

In summary: there's nothing inherently off-topic about a question like this. But such questions may be too broad, and they are certainly open to the community's downvotes.

Answer 2

I understand it cannot be migrated to BHSE as it is, but I believe the question should be closed with the suggestion it be reworded specifically for BHSE or Christianity SE. However, in it's current form it is really not perfect for either site but is closer to falling within BHSE standards.

Let's review the tours for the two SE sites and what Westar and the seminar and the topic question all say:

Christianity Stack Exchange Tour:

Ask about...

• the history of denominations (such as Roman Catholic, Anglican, Church of Christ, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and movements (such as Pentecostalism, Creationism, Calvinism)
• understanding the Bible from the perspective of a specific viewpoint (like those listed above)
• explanations of the beliefs and practices of a denomination or movement
• the Biblical basis for a belief or practice

---

From the Westar website: https://www.westarinstitute.org/about/

Westar is not affiliated with any religious institution or denomination and does not advocate a particular theological point of view.

---

Don't ask about...

• a survey of all Christian views on a particular subject
• what the Bible says about a subject (unless you specify a doctrine/tradition)
• advice on how to handle certain situations (pastoral advice questions)
• is "X" a sin questions that ask whether a certain action or belief is sinful
• "Truth" questions that do not focus on what a specific group of people teaches
• whether some group or person is "Christian"

---

From the summary of the Seminar on the Acts of the Apostles:

The Seminar on the Acts of the Apostles began deliberations in 2001, with the task of going through the canonical Acts of the Apostles from beginning to end and evaluating it for historical accuracy.

---

Biblical hermeneutics Stack Exchange Tour:

If your question is about...

• interpretation of a specific Bible passage
• hermeneutical approaches
• translation of Biblical texts
• historical context (with regards to a particular text)
• source criticism

... then this is the right place to ask.

---

The question at hand says:

The Seminar on Acts of the Apostles sat for ten years until 2011, examining the Acts of the Apostles. What were its main findings and how were they arrived at?

An answer that has a description of how they were arrived at would be a purely hermeneutical exercise (unless they did come out of a specific Tradition).

What their findings are is a very agnostic question. It fails to connect to Christianity in any specific way. At best it is too broad. Their findings may involve or impact Christian history or doctrine but the result is broad and/or vague.

Suggestion for editing for C.SE

I would suggest a series of questions that specifically target a review of the Seminar and it's influence, disagreement or similarity, or doctrinal impact if true on a specific scope/denomination/tradition. Or questions clarifying its conclusions within Christian history.

If Christianity did not begin primarily in Jerusalem, where did it? (According to the Seminar on Acts)

Or

If true, how would adherents of biblical inerrancy reconcile character names in Acts being fictional?

Conclusion

Specifically in this case:

Being neither a focused question about Christianity nor a question solely about the Seminar's approach and evidence, the question should be modified to be tailored for one specific site, or two, with one version for each, even.

In general as policy:

Questions simply asking for a review of the content of a book should not be allowed on Christianity SE. Questions on books or any published material (research papers, journal articles, recordings, videos, etc) should have to engage with a particular part of Christianity: it's doctrine, denominations or history. Asking for a book reviews is not a good question.

Does it have to be "Christian"?

I'll add that a benefit of this approach will be that we as a community do not need to sit in judgment on the source. Whether or not the source that is engaged with a part of Christianity is Christian itself is irrelevant. In fact, just as the site guidelines say, it's not really our place to ask if a group or person is Christian.

If we both require sources to be Christian and allow questions summarizing sources then part of such questions will be to decide if they are Christian, necessarily violating our own guidelines.

Instead, we should be ensuring that all questions are about Christianity in some way. Even secular sources can now engage or be engaged by a point of Christianity.

---

Appendix

Some of my Reasoning

One may also think of it this way, a Formula:

Consider how we have concluded that "What does the Bible say about X?" questions are off-topic. Same with "What did Martin Luther (Y) believe?

The proper way to ask such questions is "What does the Bible have to say about X according to Y?" And "What did Martin Luther (Y) believe about X?"

X is the part of Christianity that is being discussed. Y is the part that is engaging with or being engaged by X in some way. But a question needs both factors X and Y to be complete, focused and on-topic. A question with only one factor tends to either be too broad (Y with no X) or primarily opinion based (X with no Y)

A question asking for a review or summary of a source (book, recording, video, article, any published material) is just like asking about the Y but not telling us where or what X is. It is just asking:

"What does Y say?" This never an acceptable question in any other case, why would it be now?

Some books will certainly engage with Christianity by their nature and topic, but in what and in how many ways? At best, it is still too broad. I highly doubt that C.SE wants to open the "Pandora's Box" that would be allowing book reviews simply summarizing a source's content.

Compare:

• "What does Augustine's City of God say?" vs "What does Augustine's City of God say about original sin?"
• "What does Dawkins' The God Delusion say?" vs "How have Reformed theologians responded to what Dawkins' The God Delusion says regarding Original Sin?"

The latter still allows even secular sources to engage with Christianity though you may notice it is reversed to be how Christianity has engaged with Dawkins.

Examples

Examples of relevant precedents from these two sites:

Questions on Christianity SE that involve books but connect to Christianity specifically:

How does mainstream Christianity view "Heaven is for Real"?

Notice it is not "What is the book "Heaven is for Real" about?" That would be invalid.

Have any major Christian intellectuals responded to Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design"?

This is not asking for a summary of The Grand Design but it is looking for a response from Christianity.

On BHSE

Involving multiple biblical books and a particular model at BHSE:

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4401/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-synoptics-and-the-gospel-of-thomas

Not out of one text but only directed to particular texts identified as Q by particular criticism model:

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4402/what-signs-does-q-show-of-stages-of-composition

Answer 3

I agree the question doesn't really belong on this site, but I'd stop short of calling it advertising. It is related to Christianity, but if we keep to our site mission of documenting the beliefs and practices of Christian groups, then it's not quite there. (Unless it could be established that the vast majority of the seminar participants are self-identified Christians.)

It should be migrated to the Hermeneutics site.

Answer 4

I'll let others defend my question, but I would like to address three points made by Technik Empire:

The first is that this is a site "a site for Christianity"; and " This is site about people subscribing to the theological claims of Christianity." It is not. It is a site about Christianity, and defined as a secular site: Brothers, we are not Christians‼ The difference means that relevant source material can be used in either a question or an answer, even if we consider that material to be secular. I will add a personal comment to exclude an anti-Christian rant, but I wrote this question and (so far) the only answer, and assert that neither the question nor the answer consists of a rant.

The second is that the Seminar was all about "nice books for sale". There is nothing in my question to do with selling books. There is nothing in my answer to do with selling books. One could read all the online reports produced by the Seminar and be only peripherally aware that there is a (low cost) report available for purchase. It happens that I am adding a copy to my library, and in reply to a comment request, I undertook to answer fair-dealing questions regarding the contents - so by chance this already eliminates the impetus for most of us here to buy the book. Finally, for what its worth, Westar is a non-profit institute, so presumably it does not tout its reports to earn a profit for shareholders "in the capitalistic sense.".

My third response concerns "the end result of these "studies" done by this small group of like minded individuals"; "it's just some random group of people, a very small group of people at that. It's not like we're talking about a meeting or study held by officials where the outcome officially fundamentally reflects cannon or something. It's just some guys who are not anymore distinguished from Joe off the street"; "worshiping titles bought and paid for from private for-profit businesses [presumably a reference to the qualifications and honorifics of the Fellows attending the Seminar]." Some of this is clearly insulting, so I will deal with it carefully.

Based on voting figures, there appear to have been around 100 Fellows attending and voting. At this stage, I do not have access to their names and credentials, other than the contributing authors of the final report. The Institute claims that over 200 "scholars of religion" called Fellows have participated in the various Seminars held to date. Given their credentials and speciality, this is a sufficiently large group as not to constitute "a very small group of people." Membership as a Westar Fellow is open to:

• Scholars with advanced academic degrees (Ph.D. or equivalent) in religious studies or related disciplines from accredited universities worldwide.
• Published authors who are recognized authorities in the field of religion (by special invitation only).

The requirement to have a PhD or equivalent, or to be a published author who is a recognised authority in the field of religion, seems to exclude from Fellowship "guys who are not anymore distinguished from Joe off the street".

Not only do the Institute's Fellows not merely hold titles bought and paid for from private for-profit businesses, but the report's contributors, at least, hold very senior academic positions that set them apart and give cause to listen to their findings:

Dennis E. Smith, Ladonna Kramer Meinders Professor of New Testament at Phillips Theological Seminary in Tulsa, Oklahoma
Joseph B. Tyson is Professor emeritus of Religious Studies at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
Rubén Dupertuis, Associate Professor of Religion, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas
Perry V. Kea, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, University of Indianapolis, Indiana
Nina E. Livesey, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, University of Oklahoma at Norman
Dennis R. MacDonald, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Claremont School of Theology, California
Shelly Matthews, Associate Professor of New Testament, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth
Milton Moreland, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee
Richard I. Pervo, retired, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Thomas E. Phillips, Dean of Library and Information Services, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, California
Christine R. Shea, Professor of Classics, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
William O. Walker, Jr., Jennie Farris Railey King Professor Emeritus of Religion, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas

---

In summary, I feel I have to agree with the opinion expressed above, that this is an obvious attempt to silence an opinion @TechnikEmpire does not like.

Answer 5

I don't see anything wrong with the question. It's asking about a specific decision, made by a council of men who voted to determine their interpretation of certain biblical texts. Isn't this the same as asking "What exactly was the purpose of the Council of Nicea, and what methods were used for their decision"? The OP only asked for the conclusion of this council, and for a few examples of how they came to that decision. The question seems to be on-topic, and his answer definitely addressed his specific questions.

Answer 6

The Christianity: Stack Exchange tour page includes the following relevant points:

Christianity - Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. ...

Ask about ....

• understanding the Bible from the perspective of a specific viewpoint,
• explanations of the beliefs and practices of a denomination or movement. ....

Don’t ask about ...

• whether some group or person is “Christian.”

By these measures @DickHarfield’s question is appropriate to this site. Dick himself is obviously part of the target community as described here, and his question fits the requirements of the site, namely, "understanding of the Bible [the Acts of the Apostles] from the perspective of a specific viewpoint [Acts Seminar].” Westar Institute and its academic publishing arm, Polebridge Press, certainly contribute to critical biblical scholarship, which is certainly a movement within Christianity. The tour page does not restrict questions only to denominational institutions or those who self-identify as 'Christian', as some have suggested.