As a smaller-time theology blogger, I'm beginning to see that it pays to comment on controversy! Edward Feser has written a short blurb at the National Review on the encyclopedia, basically rehashing Kurian's case and throwing in a John Kerry reference for good measure. And he links to me! Amazing what "getting attention in the blogosphere" amounts to. Little ole' me. Perpetua of Carthage also comments on the situation.
I would stress again, I'm sensitive to Kurian's concern about confessional scholarship, and I would disagree with anyone who said that such perspectives are not valuable on an academic level. But this situation seems more basic than such PC politcs. It seems to be much more a matter of the editorial process and how it has been approached. I'd also stress, also again, that the information upon which this whole tempest in a teacup is based amounts to two emails, one from the editor and one from the publisher. Sideline commentators (like myself!) should take that into account before we get all righteous in one direction or another.
UPDATE: Ruth Glendhill has picked up on the story now, also with a link to clavi non defixi. As with the others, she seems interested in quoting exclusively from Kurian's charges rather than including the statement of Wiley-Blackwell with it. As Wiley-Blackwell posted their email publicly on my blog before Feser, Glendhill, or others picked it up, I can't help but think that they're not including everything simply for the purposes of stirring the pot some more. Carl at Ignatius Scoop has also picked up on the story, with a bit more common sense and qualifications included.