A Normative and Indeed Welcome Response to the Presentation of Academic Papers

Dr. Mark Ward, Dr. Will Ross and Dr. John Meade recently released a joint YouTube video on what Dr. Ward describes as a means to “help me break my two-year silence* on Confessional Bibliology” and “to respond to their recent Reformation Bible Society Conference.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wozfw14b4n8&t=221s

Both Drs. Van Kleeck delivered lectures at the conference. Dr. Van Kleeck, Jr’s lecture was commented on by the men, but it was apparent from their comments that their academic training left them unprepared to evaluate his lecture. Not critiquing every lecture, unsurprisingly, Dr. Ward and guests were critical of what was in their opinion a lack of academic rigor throughout the conference largely in part due to Dr. Ward’s disagreements with the tenets of Confessional Bibliology. The criticism of poor scholarship, however, is the ubiquitous straw man response of unfavorable reviews, and given from a conspicuously pejorative perspective looses it’s cool, balanced, academic luster. Frankly, my first response to this news was elation. In the perpetual work of saying only those things that God has already said about Himself in His Word, all news is good news and that to have Dr. Ross’ and Dr. Meade’s review of the lectures was a good thing. This in turn prompted the writing of the short post below as a note of encouragement and edification.

A normative and indeed welcome response to the presentation of academic papers expresses itself in the critical review of the research by others in the same discipline. This response is normative because only rarely are academic papers ignored without a critical response. No matter how sympathetic or antagonistic the reviewer to the topic, there is always more work to be done, perhaps a better way to say something, and the need to further tighten up the flow of a thesis. And, speaking anecdotally, erudite critics of a paper usually serve the future development of a topic better than do those sympathetic to the proposal.

This normative aspect of academic review can better be recognized as “iron sharpening iron.” The nature of academia is to review papers. Entire journals are given to book reviews and rebuttals of proposed topics. The response is also welcome for several reasons. The first, is that oft times, unfortunately, a critical review of a lecture is taken personally. I say unfortunately first because sometimes a critical review smacks of vitriol no matter how thinly veiled, rather than constructive criticism. After all, the review should bolster a refining work in the writing and research of the presenter. A welcoming spirit enables a balanced, academic, professional focus of a review despite the reviewer’s potentially obtuse trajectory.

Secondly, the review should be welcomed because it is the nature of academia to perform such a service within the discipline. One mark of academic credibility and veracity is a lecture’s peer review. And lest one thinks for a fleeting instance that peer reviews of papers are necessarily favorable and generous to a favorite presenter, there are few papers that escape the ravages of the review. Indeed, if the paper is not thoroughly reviewed, the fault lies with the reviewer which begs the question, “Why was Dr. So and So soft on the presentation.” It is the thought invested by one scholar to dismantle the work of another that makes the entire enterprise so rewarding, because, beloved, there is no end to the cycle of writing and reviewing favorable and unfavorable academic papers. And so, we should all embrace a normative and welcome response, whether favorable or unfavorable, to the presentation of academic papers.

Rather than taking any offense whether real or imagined, my suggestion is to embrace the banter, hold the interlocular’s proverbial feet to an honest appraisal of the lecture, fully expecting that in this realm of academic work like so much of life, the adage “what goes around comes around” is in full force, and that both sides can professionally take what the other side dishes out without crying “foul!”

Blessings!