Voddie Baucham's Publisher Doubles Down on Falsehoods
I am disappointed in the unacceptable response from Salem Books Publishing regarding the misquotations and plagiarism in Voddie Baucham's bestselling book, Fault Lines.
A few days ago, Dr. Joel McDurmon published an article explaining that Voddie Baucham's politically charged polemic, Fault Lines, was tarnished by misquotations, mischaracterizations, and plagiarism. In this article, McDurmon provides multiple specific examples from crucial passages in the book. McDurmon, through cited examples and screenshots, shows how Voddie misquotes his ideological opponent, Richard Delgado, on the definition of Critical Race Theory. McDurmon provides an example of Voddie explicitly stating in a video presentation that these words are Degado's (they aren't). Lastly, McDurmon shows that not only are these quotations not from Delgado; they're also not the personal commentary of Voddie. Instead, some of the commentary (printed as a quotation) is from atheist and known hoaxer James A. Lindsay. Though not included in McDurmon's original essay, there are also other examples of Voddie using the same fabricated words and attributing these words to CRT leaders (1).
This is but a brief outline. To learn more, please read McDurmon's article.
In a recent report published by julieroys.com and written by Bob Smietana of the Religion News Service, the publisher of Voddie Baucham's Fault Lines (SBP) is quoted dismissing McDurmon's article and evidence:
The blogger's claims of poor documentation and plagiarism in Fault Lines are not well-founded. McDurmon's weak argument is based on his preference for quoting in an academic style of documentation and formatting, rather than the Chicago Manual of Style, which is the standard for popular-level works published not only by Salem Books but also for most of our peer publishers in the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association,
Salem Books publisher Tim Peterson continues:
It is common for academics to write both popular-level works and academic works and use different documentation styles accordingly. It is unreasonable for McDurmon to demand academic documentation in a popular work and it undermines his overall critique of Baucham's assessment of Critical Race Theory.
Before I address how Peterson dismisses the accumulated evidence provided by McDurmon, I want to point out that Peterson does not at all address the claim of plagiarism. His retort only applies to the evidence of misquotations. Failing to cite a source (in this case, James A. Lindsay) is not a matter of writing style or formatting. However, to give Peterson the benefit of the doubt, his published response provided by julieroys.com is from an email, and only segments were likely published. Regardless, I want to stress that what was published does not even address the more substantial charge of plagiarism. It remains unanswered.
Regarding the misquotations, Voddie's publisher dismisses the charges as a formatting issue. The publisher, Tim Peterson, claims that Salem Books Publishing uses the Chicago Manual of Style standard for Voddie's book and that McDurmon insists on more academic standards.
However, there are a few problems with the given excuse.
First, McDurmon has written on both an academic and popular level. He, and the other editors at Lamb's Reign, are not in any way insisting that Voddie's popular-level work be cited and formatted as an academic work. This article isn’t even cited in an academic format. Peterson’s claim is silly, and we would be crazy for insisting on an academic standard for Voddie's popular-level book. Peterson is correct in calling this demand unreasonable, but no one is making this demand.
But the most egregious issue with this excuse is that Peterson's claim is simply not true. He claims that the book was correctly using the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), but that is easily shown as a false statement. According to various credible sources (2), the MLA, APA, and CMS/Turabian standards are nearly identical regarding block quotes (the type of quote in question). I should also point out that the Chicago writing style is an academic style, as opposed to what Peterson claims.
I could not find any style that believes it permissible to include original (or from a third-party) unmarked(3) commentary in a quotation of any kind. Frankly, friends, I find it a bit bizarre that I have to write that last sentence. We are talking about the unmarked inclusion of commentary in a quote, and we should not need to appeal to formal writing standards to know this. It's unfortunate that we even need to get into the weeds of writing style standards.
In short, Peterson's excuse is just as problematic as some of Voddie's work. I don't want to be overly harsh, but I don't know where else to land. Either this publisher is unaware of Chicago standards and is still using them as an excuse, or he doesn't care that Voddie's book includes these severe ethical problems. It would have been better to admit to a severe formatting mistake (as best), but now the publisher is left with defending a version of the Chicago style that doesn't exist.
Over the last few days, I have seen hundreds if not thousands of responses to McDurmon's article. It is with great joy that many supporters of Voddie and staunch CRT-critics are still acknowledging the severity of these problems. I am encouraged that many within the Christian community are willing to hold a man they admire to the same standard as men they don't admire.
Yet, many are making similar flimsy excuses as Voddie's publisher. Many more are just denying with no reason behind their insistence. Others are minimizing. And yes, many are just attacking the source (this publication and Dr. McDurmon). I’ve personally been called demonic. Though I cannot peer into the hearts of these men and women, I do encourage all believers to beware of the leaven of celebrity culture. Our leaders are to be held at a higher standard, not a lower standard. We too often overlook the sins of those we are fans of while being uncharitably vicious to those we are opposed to. Accountability is for everyone, and especially for those with a great deal of influence.
I do not hate Voddie. I have several issues with some of his teachings (perhaps to be discussed another time). Still, I am writing as a Reformed, theological conservative who is to “the right” of even Voddie on many social issues (especially economics). This is a serious issue. Regardless of Voddie's heart in these matters, regardless of his hidden motivations, or the motivations of his publisher, this is an ethical issue. Whether this is an issue of severe and uncorrected negligence or purposeful deceit, it demands a weighty and timely remedy.
It is my hope that a publisher whose website purports its mission to be, in part, to "proclaim the Gospel of Jesus" as well as a minister of God's Word will not cover up sin with more sin. I hope there will be correction and humility, which will be an example of how Christians respond to error.
Brothers and sisters, again, even if this is a case of doubling down on not correcting negligence as opposed to an initial purposeful deception, this is sin, and there is need for repentance.
https://youtu.be/j3LwCsRkBOE. About the 8-minute mark. Uses the same "righteous action" language that was misquoted in Fault Lines.
https://youtu.be/yEL7KtQ673w. About the 26-minute mark. Uses the same "righteous action" language he misquoted in Fault Lines. Reiterates that this "is not me" but the words of CRT proponents.
https://youtu.be/kBISRjN5Sto. About the 36-minute mark he reiterates that his four points come from Delgado.
The Chicago Manual Style
University of Arizona
San José State University
Many more sources say the same thing. This is standard procedure.Some have claimed that Voddie used italics to mark his commentary. Though this would still be improper according to accepted standards, it’s not what Voddie is doing. Though portions of the inserted commentary (published as a quote) are italicized, much of it is not. Some sentences are only partially italicized, regardless if it is commentary or quote. If italics are being used to mark Voddie’s commentary, much of it is still not marked. Italics are being used, but it is for emphasis, not to show an authorial comment.