by KeithE » Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:05 am
The terms each “side” uses to described themselves should be let up to that side’s take on the issues involved.
To the Sandy/William’s side of the debate, they see it as a Conservative Resurgence. By their definition “Conservative” is one who simply believes that, as with the BF&M 1963 and 2000, the Bible is “truth w/o any mixture or error”. I can understand that viewpoint and have gladly let them go their way to “resurge” as they wish.
To my/David’s side, it was a Fundamentalist Takeover. By definition (to our “side”) a Fundamentalist is one who holds to biblical inerrancy (an untenable view, imo). It was also a Takeover in that many people lost their jobs.
Just merely crying out, you're a “Liberal” or you’re a “Fundamentalist" does little to resolve the issues. No more so than saying you’re an “Alarmist” or you’re a “Denialist”. More depth of study is needed on all sides and a willingness to subject one’s view to correction.
I do recommend William Hull’s latest and last book which finds good points in both “sides”.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.