Marginal Revolution pointed readers to a recent article in the New Yorker that explores the Bible publishing industry. It’s got plenty of factoids and quotations that are good for a chuckle or a groan. I had heard that it was the best-selling book of all time, but I didn’t realize it outsold all other titles every year (e.g., in 2005, it sold twice as much as the latest Harry Potter book). That amounts to more than half a billion dollars in sales annually. The article describes some of the economic incentives to come out with new translations, the potential sales boost that can come from an endorsement from a megachurch pastor, and the way Bibles are (re-) packaged and marketed to more and more cultural niches. Here are a couple lowlights:
- Bibles for everybody: cowboys, surfers, hikers, dieters, skaters…you name it. There’s a super-heroes Bible, and one that’s “for boys” that emphasizes all “the gross and gory stuff.”
- There are Bibles that are designed to look like teen magazines that give beauty secrets. Here’s a quotation: Have you ever had a white stain appear underneath the arms of your favorite dark blouse? Don’t freak out. You can quickly give deodorant spots the boot. Just grab a spare toothbrush, dampen with a little water and liquid soap, and gently scrub until the stain fades away. As you wash away the stain, praise God for cleansing us from all the wrong things we have done. (1 John 1:9)
I haven’t had much exposure to the evangelical culture in quite a while, now. I see some of it at the school where I teach, but I don’t listen to Christian music or read Christian books anymore (that is, the kind of music and books you’d find at a “Christian” store; when I want Christian music or books, I’ll listen to Bach or read Augustine, but I digress). I don’t go to one of those trendy churches—you know, the kind that tries hard not to look like an actual church. These are things I’ve actively tried to flee, and I’ve succeeded to the point that when I’m faced with it, evangelical culture seems alien to me.
The New Yorker report put it right back in my face. But I’m puzzled about why it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. Few people have more respect and admiration than I do for the glories of the free market and the creativity it unleashes, and I think it’s wonderful that producers come up with more and more ways to meet the demands of consumers. Heck, I even think it’s a good thing when producers can create demands that weren’t already around! So why do I react so strongly to this article? Here are a few possibilities:
- All the packaging and “glitz” detracts from the content, and maybe it fuels a kind of narcissism.
- It’s wasteful—wouldn’t it be better to send Bibles to places that are starving for copies?
- It reinforces the cult of celebrity surrounding pastors of mega-churches and talk-shows; the emphasis is on those people rather than on God.
- It also represents/reinforces the evangelical tendency to neglect things like transcendence and reverence.
- Some of the aesthetic choices are just execrable: e.g., the Precious Moments Bible (sweet Jebus, why did they have to come up with that one? WHY?!).
6 comments:
I am just thankful that the white stain appeared underneath the arm and not elsewhere. I am still waiting for the Bible for Small Doctor Animals. Any suggestions where i might find one?
Just thinking of hearing you say the title (and 'Sweet Jesus') made me laugh.
But I don't see anything inconsistent with respecting the glories of the free market and thinking that there are some markets are such that people ought not want to participate in them. For example, I don't think that there should be any governmental prohibition from people making movies like Nacho Libre, but I want to smack anyone who wants to go see it (much less actually does go see it) in the head.
#2 in your list of possible irritants presupposes that there are actually places that are starving for bibles.
Such places have never existed outside xian imagination.
blakbuzzrd, I think your claim is false. But even if there are no places that are starving for Bibles, there ARE places that are starving for books, so we could tweak the second possibility a bit.
But --and this is also a response to KT--this kind of comment sounds a lot like the sort that I'm usually defending against, rather than offering. Why suppose that hording Bibles for oneself is mutually exclusive with sending Bibles to others? Zondervan will be happy to print up as many as people want to buy. So it was odd that I had this reaction.
The point I was trying to make is this: the mere fact that the government ought not be involved with regulating X doesn't mean that people ought to desire X. I wasn't commenting on hoarding vs. sending. My comment was closer to the idea that there are some things that people ought not desire to either hoard or send. And I'm inclined to believe that Biker Chick Barbie Banana Scented Bibles are one such thing.
CAC, your claim that my claim is false is untenable.
So there.
More to the point, when are you going to pick a new moniker? We're all waiting!
Post a Comment