An open and affirming shire

Here's how one “Confessional” blog coddles evident, militant enemies of the faith. It's like one of those "open and affirming" churches that hangs pink triangles in the sanctuary:

Stephen said,

April 7, 2011 at 9:22 am

Let me briefly come at this from another angle. For me this came down to constantly encountering how in order to uphold inerrancy I had to decide ahead of time (don’t get me wrong, this “decision” is potentially in line with some of the Bible’s self-claims) that the Bible is and must be inerrant. This brings with it an interpretive methodology that inherently favors interpretive options not involving the Bible in an error (whatever we mean by that). Over time I found this to inhibit accurate readings of the Bible. Thus I jettisoned inerrancy because, frankly, I found it problematic for a truly “high view of Scripture,” one truly willing to follow the Bible and God’s challenges in it to us and our doctrines wherever they take us.

Reed Here said,

April 7, 2011 at 10:31 am

I do appreciate your reasons and am sympathetic.

Reed Here said,

April 7, 2011 at 9:24 pm

Stephen: I value and appreciate your approach. I was contemplating along the same lines after posted...Sincerely, thanks for your intent here Stephen. I share it with you. I’ll respond soon.

paigebritton said,

April 8, 2011 at 6:20 am

Hey, Stephen,

Thanks for taking the time to write that! I value your thoughts for the spirit in which they’re offered and the care you take to articulate them.

Stephen said,

April 13, 2011 at 11:35 pm

Where I differ from classical Evangelical-Reformed understandings of Scripture may be categorized in terms of what I think it means that the Bible is fully God’s Word. For me that doesn’t mean lack of error because I refuse to prejudge what God can or did do when inspiring his word. Furthermore, it remains patently obvious to me (I do not mean that polemically) that the Bible is FULL of errors in the classic sense (inaccuracies where a claim about history or science is meant; “contradictions;” and so on).

paigebritton said,

April 14, 2011 at 7:05 am

Stephen, (#112)

Wow, thank you so much for taking the time to write all that out.

paigebritton said,

April 15, 2011 at 3:59 am

Stephen,

I hope you saw my #122 (re. your #112). Thank you so much for #113, too, and your interest in carefully articulating your position. I, for one, value understanding it better (and I didn’t find it long-winded! :)...At some level I resonate with this: intellectual integrity is important to me, too, and I can see how someone with your convictions & abilities would feel this is the best way to “love God with all your mind.”

paigebritton said,

April 16, 2011 at 5:58 am

Hey, Stephen,

I think that TUAD’s pasting of parts of my comment (#164) into his “does this help?” comment (#175) gave my words a de-contextualized clout that I certainly didn’t intend. I respect your desire for scholarly integrity and for trying to “love God with all your mind,” and I tried to frame the observations I was making with this tone. (And sorry for the caricature — “in the teeth of the evidence” — which was meant only playfully!) Unfortunately, TUAD left off the “frame” parts so my words took on a more belligerent tone.

 

Apologies for the unintended consequences of a cut-and-pasted comment!

paigebritton said,

April 18, 2011 at 7:01 am

Hey, Stephen!

Thanks for your kind words. Didn’t mean to sound pessimistic there about the possibility of our communication with your well-read self; just wanted to give the heads-up that you were pretty far along in considering ideas, so the basic answers we might come up with probably won’t suffice.

Reed Here said,

April 18, 2011 at 9:45 am

Stephen:

 

I want to address your response, but no time right now. Let it suffice that we’re sincerely searching for the right answers, and sometimes we speak past one another.

paigebritton said,

April 20, 2011 at 7:08 am

Jed & Stephen & everybody,

 

I am assuming (based on Stephen’s earlier comments) that we are all in agreement that the Bible is inspired by God, whether or not we are in agreement about inerrancy.

paigebritton said,

April 22, 2011 at 6:41 am

TUAD -

Please don’t keep bringing in Stephen’s past comments from other blogs, okay? He’s taken that very graciously, but let’s just let him choose for himself what he wants to say in this conversation.

Thanks.

 

Sorry, Stephen, that I was not aware Truth was doing that yesterday. I will nix the bits you didn’t interact with.

Reed Here said,

April 23, 2011 at 12:24 pm

Paige: agreed. While I think Stephen is horribly wrong, we did invite him here to interact on the topic. As valuable as our conversation on GB may be (more or less, I know, I know), it is not as vital as what happens Sunday in and Sunday out.