by Jim » Fri May 13, 2011 7:22 pm
While interesting, this thread provides no surprises. It’s virtually certain that no minds have been changed. This forum is essentially mod/lib, with preaching to the choir a virtuous exercise, though surely at some point terribly boring. The same can be true, I feel sure, vis-à-vis forums that are predominantly conservative. I’m not familiar with other forums. I’m a conservative (CBF-oriented, an oddity) so I get hammered here and find that exhilarating.
The mod/lib interprets the Bible as informed by his place on the moral high ground. The conservative interprets the Bible as informed by what it says – in his view – and nothing else. Both use the same scriptures and come to different conclusions, nothing unusual about that. The scriptures seem very clear text-wise (literally), at least to some conservatives (except me) or the fundamentalists, that women should not serve as lead pastors or whatever else the head honcho is called. Those same scriptures are read by the mod/lib, who insists on either a different interpretation or making them take a trip through the culture scene, both then and now. I’ve formed my own view, using the keystone of Baptist thought – priesthood of the believer.
The SBC is the daily whipping-boy in this forum, made up by many former SBCers, including me. I still contribute to Lottie Moon because I think that’s a good work. I don’t much care for the doctrinal squabbles. The only gripe I have with the so-called resurgence is the often outrageous dislocation of principled people it caused. Some lost out entirely, lost everything in losing their jobs altogether. That was dead wrong and there are many people to whom the SBC owes a lot but, of course, will never pay-up. That is exponential sin, engendered by a “take no prisoners” position, the resort, whether first or final, of the fundamentalist.
But the mod/libs can be supercilious to a fault, looking down on those with whom they disagree and accuse them of whatever in pejorative terms. That’s been seen in this thread. They can be divisive and disagreeably so, even publicly. Case in point: the Carter/Clinton NBCC (this will harpoon me) of January 2008. Carter had very publicly – media ate it up, also hating SBCers – that the SBC was made up of insensitive, negative (his term) folks and dis-invited them to his “togetherness” project and made certain that it coincided with the ending of the black conventions, thus insuring the “togetherness.”
Carter is no doubt gung-ho for female pastors – fair enough. He can find his position in scripture, especially as he occupies the moral high ground. He has also proclaimed publicly that same-sex unions should be codified in the law and can find, one supposes, scriptural mandates for that…except that homosexual behavior is literally a black/white issue in scripture, except as it is plowed through the moral high ground and thus sanitized.
So…what is to be said? A better part of this thread has dealt with cooperation or the lack thereof. With respect to the ordination of women, I believe they should have it if they’re called into ministry, but I don’t claim to have a corner on the theological truth, and that’s what separates me from the mod/lib, who, operating on the moral high ground and not just the Bible, would never make that concession. Nor would the SBC hierarchy, with its fundamentalist surety, so it’s back to square one. At that place, I can cooperate with the SBC and CBF, but I’m not an employee in the systems, so I have nothing to lose materially. As long as the women in the SBC are satisfied with their place, I have no quarrel with the CR gang.