When I posted my book review of “Spending God’s Money,” by Mary Kinney Branson (Father’s Press), I noted clearly that Branson was not a dispassionate observer and that her book’s content was made up of some things documented, some things observed and some things “hearsay.”

One of the people noted by Branson as one who may have been working on outside projects while on NAMB hours was Carolyn Curtis. Mrs. Curtis has now posted a response on Marty Duren’s blog, and with his permission, I am republishing it here.

I think it is a healthy thing to get “the other side of the story” in situations like this and I am glad Mrs. Curtis is willing to speak out.

Here is her response:

Someone sent me copies of pages from Spending God’s Money by Mary Branson on which I was referenced by first name or job title or responsibility at the North American Mission Board. The pages include gross inaccuracies and implications (making me wonder if the rest of the book is flawed), so the purpose of this is to correct the information and impressions.

The author implies I did ghostwriting for Bob Reccord, Randy Singer and Ed Stetzer and that I did it during office hours. This is absurd on several levels.

I’ll begin by explaining ghostwriting versus editing. The last book I ghostwrote was Believing the Promise, published by Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc. in 1999, which was before I took on any personal editing for NAMB executives. My name is listed on the cover under the author’s name, Heather Whitestone McCallum, with this notation: “with Carolyn Curtis.” This is the publishing industry’s standard way of crediting a ghostwriter, which is a person who actually does the writing on behalf of an author, usually a celebrity not gifted with writing abilities but with a worthy story to tell.

Another example: In 2005 Bob Reccord co-authored a book entitled Strike Zone with a World Series-winning pitcher, Andy Pettitte. The book was published by Broadman & Holman, now B&H. Like McCallum, Pettitte did not claim to be a writer and credited his ghostwriter, Mark Tabb, in his Acknowledgments. Like myself in the previous paragraph’s example, Tabb was credited by the publishing house using the “with” designation on the cover.

This explanation is to make several points.
• Publishing houses have standards which apply not only to differentiating between editorial processes such as “ghostwriting” and “editing” but standards which apply to content as well. (More about that later.)
• Bob Reccord, Randy Singer and Ed Stetzer have backgrounds in fields such as ministry, the law and missiology – communication professions – and they do not need ghostwriters. However, like every conscientious author I know, they needed an editor, and I’m pleased they chose me. (Publishing houses edit the material, even after the author and the author’s editor have submitted the manuscript. Again, publishing houses have standards…but, as promised, more about that later.)
• I charge an hourly fee, and the authors paid me using personal checks. No Cooperative Program or NAMB money went toward editing their books. And I’m happy to say that in each case the payments were made promptly, in full and always with gratitude.
• My work on these books was done during non-business hours. In the pages sent to me from Spending God’s Money, Mary Branson writes: “…Carolyn conferred extensively with Bob during working hours…” As editor of NAMB’s flagship magazine, I occasionally had reason to confer with the president. For example, a flagship magazine is often a lightning rod for comments on its parent agency via Letters to the Editor. If one came in that I thought he should be aware of, I made sure he saw it. I did not confer with book clients during office hours. And the book editing was done on my home computer during evening and weekend hours. On two occasions, I attended meetings with their publishers during office hours for a book co-authored by Bob Reccord and Randy Singer, and in both cases I took vacation time. (Just to be diligent, after receiving the pages sent to me of Spending God’s Money and seeing how my work on these books was represented – specifically the issue of using working versus non-working hours – I checked discs I’d made of correspondence as well as edits on the manuscripts. I admit this was a tedious review, but the tone of Mary Branson’s writing – so factual sounding! – made me doubt my own memory. Here’s what I found: Of 126 emails between me and Bob Reccord on his last two books, only four were written between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday.)

The parenthetical data above – way more info than anyone needs – illustrates another point I want to make, and I hinted at it earlier. Publishing houses have standards. On the few pages sent to me from Spending God’s Money, I see comments and anecdotes on other people (in addition to ones referencing me) that range from factually inaccurate to blatantly vitriolic. In my statements above I’ve given several from the first category. The ones that fall into the category of vitriol (defined as scathing, caustic, abusive, etc.) are about people with whom Mary Branson did not get along. I wonder how much space she devotes to publicly berating people.

From what I see on the pages sent to me, despite some footnoting, these comments and anecdotes do not adhere to standards of journalism or book publishing or – dare I say? – to Christian communicating. Shame on Mary Branson, who says she has authored 17 books and directed the Home Mission Board’s editing, for perpetrating a fraud. She knows the difference between writing that is honest and accurate and writing that hurts people and agencies. Why she chose to fold the latter into a manuscript in which she intended to open dialogue about stewardship is beyond poor judgment – it reduces her thoughts to personal attacks.

Legitimate publishing houses (Christian and secular) will not be a party to this kind of attack. For one thing, they avoid claims of libel; they recognize libel and don’t allow it. For another, like other professionals, legitimate book publishers maintain ethical standards so that credibility remains high within the industry (consider the difference between “books” and “tabloids,” although both are published).

Now enter the world of self publishing – and all its variations. In our free enterprise system and protected by the First Amendment’s clause on freedom of speech, authors like Mary Branson who cannot get a manuscript such as Spending God’s Money published elsewhere can print it and distribute it in the way that she did.

However, I caution: A person’s writing which is printed on book-sized paper and bound at the spine does not make it a “book” any more than a home video of your son reading his term paper makes that a television program.

Based on the pages sent to me, I can see why publishing houses rejected Spending God’s Money. A manuscript with pages like the ones I’ve seen would violate their standards and put them in jeopardy of lawsuits. Even if a publisher thought the manuscript was basically worthy but needed some editing, pages like these would not show up; the publisher would have required verification – not only of facts but of meaning. Publishers, after all, deal not just in words but in ideas. It’s a responsibility they accept, and they require it of their authors.

However, I also can see why Spending God’s Money would be a “juicy read” for people who like controversy and hearsay, especially gossip. It may even contain elements of truth (I’ve heard it has some suggestions worth pondering).

But, for my money, I’d prefer suggestions from a writer who adheres to the disciplines and standards of the publishing industry and who does not use a self-created public forum to air her personal grievances against others, people with whom I’ve worked for years, who – like all humans – have moments of genius and moments of misjudgment but, most of the time, operate in that vast middle ground. That’s why I’m disappointed – no, outraged – that Mary Branson would take broad swipes at so many godly people, using them to discredit individuals and agencies she dislikes. Spending God’s Money is not a book; it is personal acrimony disguised as literature.

I’ll add that it’s intimidating to enter the fray on a blog. (I’ll correct another inaccuracy in Spending God’s Money. I did not leave NAMB in a deal that uses Cooperative Program money, and I was not asked to sign anything that prevents me from communicating about NAMB.) The blogosphere is intimidating, because I know of no pithy statement that 1) refutes the lies, 2) corrects misimpressions, 3) adds context or perspective and – oh, yes, 4) advances the cause of the gospel. But I can speak up, and so I am.

The gospel is about a personal relationship with our Savior that leads us to personal responsibility. Regarding the people named in the book (or not named), how many bloggers are asking them (via emails, phone calls or meetings) for facts, context and perspective on the many allegations and accusations? It’s unreasonable to think these people will “blog” such nuanced information. (I have addressed only a few of the book’s inaccuracies, the ones pertaining to me, and look how much I’ve written.) For that matter, how many bloggers are questioning why, after she left NAMB, Mary Branson did not personally confront the many people of whom she disapproved or with whom she did not get along, rather than writing a public finger-wagging and wrapping it in self-righteousness? Of course, personal confrontation is difficult for most of us, but – if we have facts and feelings as strong as the ones she expressed and we believe God wants us to expose them – He will give us courage and opportunity. One more: Are bloggers asking why, if Mary Branson didn’t feel free to tell what she considered the truth to NAMB trustees while she was an employee, she didn’t do so after she left three years ago? Considering her tone and stated conviction, it seems that would have been a priority.

God bless you and thanks for taking time to read this.

Originally posted at SBC Outpost.

Mrs. Curtis is concerned that bloggers may not be interested in the nuance of accuracy when it comes to the issues surrounding NAMB and “Spending God’s Money.” I hope that she, and others like her, will understand that there are quite a few of us who are interested in just that.

[update Friday, Jan 26, 2007 9:23 pm Central] Mary Branson posted a response to Carolyn Curtis at SBC Outpost. In fairness, I add it here:

This is my only additional statement on the book, regardless of what’s said, but I feel I have to answer Carolyn’s comments.
Father’s Press is not a self-publisher though, once again, there seems to be an assumption that bigger is better.
I used phrases such as “it was rumored” in many places in SGM to protect sources even though I knew it would hurt my credibility. However, I do feel that I have to name one source. I sat in Carolyn Curtis’ kitchen, as she pointed out the flowers Bob and Cheryl gave her for her birthday, and I listened to stories that are now part of the book. Carolyn was quick to share several things.
Carolyn, want to take polygraphs?
I think we’re all missing the point. People were used to tell a much more important story. It’s not about Bob. Or Carolyn. Or me. It’s about spending God’s money and I hope we’ll all think carefully about doing that in a more responsible way. If we do, all this “discussion” will be worth it.

[/update]

Posts with related content

• No Related Post

TAGS: None