That last post was probably a mistake. I am miles away from my SBC days, yet reading Burleson's post evoked memories I had long forgotten. Then I read this blog and find that conservatives think Burleson is some kind of liberal turncoat. And I engage with him over that.
Sigh. Why do I care? I have no interest in a church denomination where woman's equality is debated. I have no interest. None. Just as I have no interest in a denomination that considers the word "liberal" as pejorative--something you use to slander opponents. Or a place where people are absolutely sure that their view of the Bible is the same as God's.
I should not have responded--to either. Not sure anything good can come of it.
4 comments:
Streak,
Thanks for reading my blog. I really haven't dismissed your comments. I just don't agree with them. Is it okay for us to agree to disagree?
Praying for you,
Les
Les, you wrote
Crucified With Christ: "Thanks for entering the discussion. However, I must say that an ex-Southern Baptist who left during the inerrancy war and who describes the purpose of his own blog as 'I use this blog to poke fun at the Bush administration and critique what I see as major failings in conservative Christianity' doesn't have a whole lot of credibility."
How is that not a dismissal? My experience and approach undermines my credibility in your eyes. Not the substance of my critique, the fact that I am liberal and not a fan of inerrancy. We can disagree on ineranncy (and will) but you dismissed me based on the fact that you think liberals who criticize the conservative church don't have any credibility, right? Or was it my attack on Bush?
Streak,
I'm not sure how assessing your credibility on this topic, i.e., Wade Burleson, is the same as dismissing you. However, if you feel that I have dismissed you, please accept my apology. That was not my intent.
You are welcome to weigh in on my blog anytime.
Regards,
Les
Ok, Les, I accept that, though I still say that when you "assessed" my credibility, you did so to avoid addressing the substance of my critique. That is dismissive, and it is essentially an ad hominem dismissal. I don't take offense, I am just pointing out the problems in your rhetoric.
And further, I don't understand the conciliatory "agree to disagree" tone. Of course you and I can "agree to disagree" or we can "disagree to disagree" and nothing changes. I am not working with you and have no desire to ever enter the SBC again.
But correct me if I am wrong, your blog statements on Burleson and others was not a "agree to disagree" or discuss to find common ground. To recap, I thought that Burleson's apology to those who were railroaded out of the SBC was rather weak since he went on to say that they should have been run out, just in a more polite manner. You, on the other hand, said that he was encouraging liberals, and that you feared that younger pastors were no longer as discerning to detect moderate influences.
"Agree to disagree?" Instead, it sounded to me to be "be conservative and innerrant or get out." And those who aren't conservative are "moderates" or (gasp) "liberals" who should not be in the SBC. That isn't really an "agree to disagree" that is a purge of alternate thoughts and viewpoints often couched and defended in selective innerancy language. It is certainly a continuation of Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler started, right?
That is why I am kicking myself for this conversation and my recent posts. I no longer even respect the SBC, and have no interest in a denomination that still debates the equality of women and has rejected its historical role of separation of church and state. Just not interested. I was drawn into this because Burleson's non-apology apology evoked strong memories.
Post a Comment