August 23, 2006


Well, I continued my little discussion with the SBC pastor. I was warned. No worries, I am fine. Hell, every single action by our President raises my blood pressure more than this little discussion.

True, arguing with Les is like wading through a fog. No offense to the good pastor. He was not abusive nor rude, but just inconsistent. He never responded to key points. He never explained why on one hand he was interested in a discussion and wanted to "agree to disagree" and on the other hand adamantly dismissed anyone to the left of Al Mohler. And when I say dismissed, I mean that people like that have nothing to contribute and there is absolutely no reason to dialogue with, or meet with, or find commonality. The best thing, in his mind (blog artistic license, Les) was when the liberals and moderates were pushed out of the SBC. After all, Jesus didn't hang around the lefties, did he? Heh.

Honestly, I like little arguments where the stakes are pretty low. They can be fun. I don't know Les and really don't care what he thinks of liberals and moderates. No offense to him, but I am not looking for a way back inside the SBC. (Just between us, I was kind of surprised when I realized that the moderates in the SBC were far too conservative for me.) I just wanted him to honestly acknolwedge that he and his buddies have systematically excluded people who think differently. Because they could. And they are proud of it. And when someone like Burleson dares to apologize for treating people badly, it raised some feathers.

Perhaps I entered into this discussion because of another experience. A potential job experience where the employer was a conservative religious school. A horrible fit for me, and I would have not worked well for them. They wanted not diversity, but uniformity of thought. And that is the SBC model. And that is ultimately what saddens me. I would think the faith would be strong enough to handle some ideas a little bigger than innerrancy.

And I still do.


Monk-in-Training said...

I don't quite understand the inerrancy debates. To me the Truth of the Scriptures has never hinged on something as mundane as historical or nit picky accuracy. Truth is in how the stories tell us that God loves us and saves us, in spite of ourselves. Why sweat details, just get about the business of the Kingdom, loving God and our neighbors.

†Deo adjuvante, non timendum
With the help of God, there is nothing to fear

Streak said...

Yeah, sigh. There is so much about the innerrancy battle that just leaves me puzzled.

BTW, I was reminded to check Les' continued comments and found this little gem:

"As far as sounding conciliatory, I know that strong beliefs divide and do not unite. Even Jesus said that. I believe I am trying to be polite and respectful, not conciliatory. Blame my Southern upbringing. "

Is this passive aggressive? Or just double speak? Shorter Les: "Me being right shouldn't cause conflict because I am right. Like Jesus."

Oh, and Les, I do blame your Southern upbringing. Among other things. Maybe that is where we get this blind Bush following where stubbornness=integrity.

Oh well.

Nicole said...

Hey, that passive aggressive,"Be polite, but don't truly engage" IS a part of Southern culture. BUT, a very very unhealthy part to the extreme it is taken these days.

It doesn't have to be that way, however. So, it makes me angry that Les claims that as a defense. GRRR.