Month: January 2015

Despite Warning Signs, Tyndale House Published a Pocket Edition of The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven in 2014

BWCBFHpaperback
Despite being aware that Alex Malarkey called the book about him deceptive and that his mother believed the book to be filled with inaccuracies, Tyndale House published a pocket paperback edition of the book  in March 2014. The publication date is over two years after they became aware that Alex posted his comments about the deceptive nature of the book on a Facebook fan page for the book.
In an April 20, 2012 email I have just obtained, Tyndale House publisher Jan Harris Long told Kevin and Beth Malarkey that the Tyndale team was aware that Alex had called the book “deceptive” in a Facebook posting. Long wrote:

We published The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven in the belief that it was a book your entire family was behind. We specifically asked if Alex was comfortable with doing the book and were told that he was. It was our understanding that Alex thought the book would be his way of fulfilling a calling to be a missionary. Several months ago, however, Alex posted a comment on the web saying that the book was “deceptive,” which was obviously of great  concern to us.

Tyndale’s reps then asked Kevin Malarkey to check with Alex but there is no indication from the email that Malarkey provided any feedback to Tyndale.

Because of Alex’s fragile health situation at the time, Kevin wanted to delay having that conversation with him, but said he would do so at a later time.  So far, however, we haven’t gotten any further information on this.

After indicating that Tyndale wanted a list of specific inaccuracies (which Beth Malarkey later provided), the publisher seemed to suggest that a resolution was required to continue:

This leaves us in a difficult situation. We entered into a book agreement in good faith and published a manuscript that we believed to be accurate. As part of our editorial and documentary development process, we interviewed a number of people who were either involved in the story or were witnesses to it. After being told that there may be inaccuracies in the book, we attempted to get information so that we could either confirm the book’s accuracy or correct any errors, but have been unable to get specifics.
Since we were unable to get any specific information that would enable us to revise the manuscript—and we didn’t want to create or add to tensions in your home—we did not force the issue.  But when one of our colleagues in our media services department told us that Beth had called last week and, among other things, expressed the view that Tyndale was “exploiting” her son, we felt we had no option but to insist that this situation be addressed.
We are requesting a meeting or phone call with the two of you and Matt Jacobson to talk through these issues and to identify next steps. Our goal is to 1) find out what, if any, inaccuracies are in the book so we can correct them and 2) to find a path forward that is glorifying to God.

It is clear that Tyndale wanted to meet with the Malarkeys. It is also clear that the publisher received Malarkey’s list of problems with the book, and that they were aware that Alex considered it deceptive. However, after insisting that the situation be addressed, the publisher did little else to address it. Instead of backing away from the book (as Tyndale has done with Mark Driscoll), they moved ahead. Despite the warning signs, the publisher continued promoting and selling the book and even published the book again in yet another form (the pocket paperback).
Ambassador Speakers
I have recently learned of yet another warning sign that the publisher may or may not have known about. For a brief period after the book was published, Kevin Malarkey was promoted by Ambassador Speakers agency. However, according to the president of Ambassador, Wes Yoder, Malarkey was removed from the roster about three years ago. However, Malarkey’s profile (now available via Google cache) had remained available via Google search. It has now been removed. Yoder told me simply: “We believed Beth was telling us the truth.”
Perhaps Tyndale House did not know that Kevin was removed from this agency. However, it seems like a significant event for a Tyndale best-selling author to keep from the publisher.
 

David Barton Plagiarizes Eric Metaxas' WSJ Article on a Fine-Tuned Universe

Without any mention of Eric Metaxas or the Wall Street Journal, David Barton, on his Wallbuilders program today, described the exact illustrations and arguments used by Metaxas in his WSJ article “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.” Barton referred to Carl Sagan’s two criteria for planets capable of sustaining life and then he said scientists have discovered that 200 perfect conditions must be met for a planet to have life. Barton refers to the Friday segment as “good news Friday.” In this case, the good news according to Barton and crew is that scientists are now leaning toward intelligent design.
Here is the link to the episode. The discussion of Metaxas’ article comes within the first 10 minutes.

Other than Barton’s embellishments, this is a description of the WSJ article. For instance, at 5:36 Barton tells his co-hosts:

BARTON: Now that they know that there are 200, they’re getting this movement in the scientific community  toward what we call intelligent design. As a matter of fact, the guy who coined the term ‘Big Bang’, are you ready for this? Fred Hoyle, and he’s the astronomer who coined the term ‘Big Bang’ said that his atheism was quote ‘greatly shaken’ unquote at the new developments.
GREEN: Wow!
BARTON: He later wrote that quote ‘a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with the chemistry and biology.  The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming to put this conclusion almost beyond question.’ That’s atheist astronomer.

Metaxas wrote in his WSJ article:

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Barton focused on two main points: one, scientists have discovered that no planets (“bubkis”) are in the habitable zone and two, that there are 200 criteria necessary for earth-like life. Both of these points are disputable. As I noted in a prior post, NASA has identified eight planets in the habitable zone, and Metaxas has not provided a source for his contention about 200 parameters. The one source I know Metaxas pointed to, a research brief by Jay Richards for the Discovery Institute, identified only 22 parameters.


In fact, Richards cautions against identifying a broad number of parameters.

In discussing fine-tuned parameters, one can take either a maximal or a minimal approach.
Those who take the maximal approach seek to create as long a list as possible. For instance, one popular Christian apologist listed thirty-four different parameters in one of his early books, and maintains a growing list, which currently has ninety parameters. He also attaches exact probabilities to various “local” factors.
While a long (and growing) list sporting exact probabilities has rhetorical force, it also has a serious downside: many of the parameters in these lists are probably derived from other, more fundamental parameters, so they’re not really independent. The rate of supernova explosions, for 290 instance, may simply be a function of some basic laws of nature, and not be a separate instance of fine-tuning. If you’re going to legitimately multiply the various parameters to get a low probability, you want to make sure you’re not “double booking,” that is, listing the same factor twice under different descriptions. Otherwise, the resulting probability will be inaccurate. Moreover, in many cases, we simply don’t know the exact probabilities.

“Rhetorical force” is a good description of what Metaxas used in his WSJ article.
This rhetoric made an impression on David Barton who liked it so much, he appropriated it as his own and added some rhetorical force of his own.

More Reasons Tyndale House Should Have Investigated Obvious Problems with The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven

(See update at the end of the post)
If you are reading this, there is pretty good chance you know that Tyndale House decided to stop printing The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven. The boy, Alex Malarkey, suffered a horrific car accident when he was six years old but has recently retracted his story about going to and coming back from heaven. The fallout has been an intense media storm.
A good overview of the controversy was published yesterday by the UK Guardian. That paper has some of the communications between Alex Malarkey’s mother and Tyndale House along with Tyndale House’s latest statements on the subject.
A good source for much of the email exchange in 2012 in which Beth Malarkey asked Tyndale to pull the book from print is at Phil Johnson’s blog. At the end of that exchange, Jan Harris Long publisher at Tyndale House said:

Even if we could make a case for breaking our contract, the book could (and probably would) be back in print with another publisher within a few weeks. So I don’t think that would achieve your goal.

In those emails, Beth Malarkey made a pretty good case that Tyndale should investigate the facts in the book and ask Kevin Malarkey and the book agent some hard questions. Mrs. Malarkey also provided the identity of people mentioned in the book and expressed doubts that those people were interviewed for the project. In other words, leads were given that would have allowed Tyndale to investigate claims in the book. After all, when Mark Driscoll was accused of plagiarism, Tyndale launched an investigation of those allegations. Clearly, Beth Malarkey’s allegations were as serious, if not more so, than those leveled against Driscoll. Last night, I asked Tyndale House if the company conducted an investigation. No replies to my questions as yet.
According to the email exchange, the problems with the story go back to the beginning. In one of the emails, Beth Malarkey said Tyndale employees had heard Alex protest about the inclusion of angels and heaven in the story when he was being interviewed for the book. On April 23, 2012, Beth Malarkey wrote:

From: beth malarkey
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:46 PM
To: Jan Long Harris
Subject: RE: innaccuracies
Sorry., but I had one more thought….you guys were here. On November 3 & 4, 2009, I had to pull Alex into the room to help him calm down. Some of the team from tyndale were asking him questions about heaven and angels. He made it clear that he did not want a book going in that direction and that he was not supposed to tell. I  tried to ask the team members to please not push him on the matter just because Alex had seen things  and he was a child. It was made clear soon after that that the title choice and cover picture were not going to be decided by Alex anyway. I am guessing that in November the direction of the story was pretty much already determined just not directly stated to Alex. So you see, Alex has spoken directly to team members before…..

Jan Harris Long replied that she was unaware of Alex’s feelings about including heaven and angels. However, if Beth Malarkey is correct, then someone at Tyndale knew the book did not properly reflect the sentiment of the child author. Tyndale had more than enough to go on in 2012 to launch an investigation.
On February 24, 2013, Beth Malarkey again wrote to Jan Harris Long claiming that Alex was being exploited.

From: beth malarkey
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:23 PM
To: Jan Long Harris
Subject: Re: Conference call?is
Dear Jan,
It has been almost a year since my last correspondence with your group. I have learned much and gained much strength as I continue on this journey. I did receive more phone calls after that last email that I exchanged with you, as well as some mail, but i really saw no point in forwarding those things onto your group. I was extremely disappointed that all that seemed to want to be accomplished was some changes to materials to try to improve what was claimed to be(by me)inaccurate. The real issues of what was being done (and is still being done) with my son never really seemed to be a concern. I was told that Kevin is in contract with you, which I am guessing is the reason that he was forwarded all the emails that I sent to you.(He told me that he was sent each page). His threats of not being believed if I spoke up seem to be true.  I was told by you that you can not tell someone how to spend their money. I am ALex Malarkey’s mom and only caregiver but yet I am not allowed to know what legal contracts were signed with my minor, dependent child’s name possibly on them? If he is indeed a coauthor, he would be entitled to at least 50% of the royalties. Have any checks been written to him? He is a medicaid recipient and can not have money so if money has been sent to him, where is it? How can all of this be allowed to go on?? This is not an issue of just truth not being told but something much deeper and yet it being promoted and encouraged. I have sought much counsel on the matter and the one thing that I can do is take care of my kids and tell the truth. This is not something that a child needs to be asked about but adults need to examine very closely for the possible wrongs and then take action. A child is being exploited and that is truth. His name is being used on materials that are selling because people believe they are reading his words, and that he is benefiting financially from the sales of the materials, neither of which is true.

Long wrote back on March 4 to say she was sorry the book was a source of distress. Long indicated that she had taken up some of Malarkey’s questions with the book agent, Matt Jacobson, although she didn’t disclose Jacobson’s answers. She told Malarkey that the reason Kevin Malarkey was getting the royalties is because he entered into the contract with Tyndale House. Long promised to send Alex royalties if Kevin allowed it contractually. Apparently that never happened. I have made efforts to contact Kevin Malarkey with no success.
By this time, Beth Malarkey had made a clear case for exploitation and Tyndale House had grounds to launch an investigation, not only about the facts of the book but the exploitation of the minor child being used to sell the book. It is amazing that this was allowed to go on for as long as it did. Given the information now available, it appears that the ball is again in the court of Tyndale House and their contractual partners. The burden is on them to try to make things right with those they have used and duped.
UPDATE: Yesterday, Tyndale House released a statement to Christianity Today and on their website.
Tyndale said that they put the book on “out-of-print status” and informed retailers that products could be returned. Regarding what the publisher knew and when, Tyndale said:

While it was only this past week that Alex Malarkey retracted his story, leading to Tyndale’s immediate decision to take the book out of print, our editors had tried on multiple occasions to meet with the family to correct any perceived inaccuracies,” stated Tyndale. “On several occasions in 2012, Tyndale reached out to Beth Malarkey to schedule a meeting to respond to a list of alleged inaccuracies in the book. After originally agreeing to a meeting, Mrs. Malarkey sent us an email on May 22, 2012, saying that, out of concern for her son, she no longer wished to meet.

As I demonstrated above, if Beth Malarkey’s allegations are true (and they were not denied by Tyndale at the time), Tyndale’s process from the beginning was flawed. The boy did not want material regarding heaven and angels in the book, and yet claims about heaven and angels make up a large part of the book. Alex Malarkey did not co-write the book and, according to his mother, protested at least some of the content from the beginning. Tyndale has yet to address this claim from Alex’s mother.
Furthermore, as I demonstrate above, the May 22, 2012 email was not the last effort Alex’s mother made to reach out to Tyndale. Again in 2013, she wrote to Jan Harris Long and asked for help to end the exploitation of her son.
Tyndale’s statement ends with the May 22 email as if Malarkey’s decision not to meet on Tyndale’s terms was decisive and sufficient to relieve them of obligation. However, Malarkey did reach out again. Also, in my opinion, Tyndale’s responsibility to investigate the claims made by Malarkey was not relieved by Malarkey’s May 22, 2012 email.  She had already given them sufficient information to prompt an investigation.

Tyndale House Talks to the Guardian (UK) About The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven; Emails Indicate Tyndale House Knew Details About Exploitation

I will have some observations and other questions about this article in the UK Guardian today about The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven.
As I read this and examine the research I have, it seems to me that Tyndale House still hasn’t confronted the seriousness of this situation. Their credibility was seriously compromised by their dealings with Mark Driscoll over plagiarism. This situation should prompt some serious public disclosures and changes.
UPDATE: I have obtained a series of emails between Beth Malarkey and Tyndale House. While I am not sure that I have all of them, I can confirm that Mrs. Malarkey alerted Tyndale House in April 2012 about numerous problems of fact in the book The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven. Beyond fact problems, Alex’s mother protested the exploitation of her son. Mrs. Malarkey asserted that Alex expressed to Tyndale visitors before the book was published that he didn’t want elements of the story to be published. Those elements were published anyway.
I am still working my way through them and will publish some material in another post soon. I have also asked Tyndale House yet again for their side of the matter.

Southern Baptists Say Enough to Perry Noble and NewSpring Church

I don’t know the issues but I post this because it will probably be of interest to readers who follow megachurch news.
Baptists’ Message to NewSpring: You’re not one of us
Noble has admitted to using Resultsource (at least he admitted it) but he did not take profits from the book (different than Mars Hill and according to former Turning Point CFO George C. Hale, David Jeremiah).
Perhaps a NewSpringInsida will show up to enlighten us. Or maybe a NewSpring mattc will provide the church view.