Angry Conservative Bloggers II

I’ve got an idea that might get nowhere at all, but here it is. I’d prefer conversation over confrontation any time, and I think a lot of the time it is very easy to misconstrue someone’s argument over a medium like blogging because text is so neutral and the implied emotion behind it is so often obscured. Its also a medium that lends itself to a bit of anonymity – you can type things you’d never say personally because you’ll never have to.

Here’s the idea: I know there are some people out there who disagree with my theological stances, and who even seem to think that I represent Something Terrible in the Church. Obviously, I like my stances, and I don’t think I’m all that terrible.

What I want is a conversation, which we can post on our respective blogs. Basically, a person who disagrees with me poses some questions and I answer them. Then, in response, I pose some questions, and they answer them. And so on. We go back and forth as much as time and interest allow. Hopefully the end result will be more understanding. Ideally, this will be an example to a divided and conflicted church of how two people can disagree on important issues and yet still respect each other and even perhaps demonstrate some of Christ’s love to each other. Coming away from the conversation, it will probably be more difficult to typify each other as this or that kind of Threat to the Church. I know I’m not innocent of this, and I read it a lot in other blogs as well.

I thought of emailing some specific people about this idea, but I don’t want to single anyone out. I also, generally, have no idea who is reading this blog beyond maybe a dozen people who comment semi-regularly or who have talked to me about it specifically. So I’m curious if this will get a response.

Time will tell.

7 thoughts on “Angry Conservative Bloggers II

  1. Aw, Doug, you’re a party-pooper! Don’t you realize that all the fun comes in partisan ones-up-manship (or is that ones-up-personship?) Why, true conversation might actually lead to reconciliation, and then we’d all have to admit that:– wherever two or more are gathered, it’s okay to have two or more opinions, and Christ will still be present with all of us; and-maybe our perspectives aren’t 100% the God’s-honest-truth after all.Well, okay. I’m game…as long as “the other side” cries uncle first! Or is that not how you suggest this should work?Boy, you are tough. True conversation, with the goal of true reconciliation. What are you, stuck on the gospel or something?Yours in Christ,Mark


  2. I read your article “unpacking” and I say you’re right about the bible and it’s limitations, I hold some of you’re views too (I’m a non theologian though I like to read some theology stuffs). Josepgh Pong’s book on sexuality (living in Sin?) reflects pretty much what you’ve said about sexuality. Here’s how I feel about you’re article, I agree with most of what’s written there and I agree that the bible should be secondary to “the experience of Christ” (that’s how I understand it)but shouldn’t you look at the bigger picture? A Bible less or a Bible non dependent (I hope my english makes sense)Christianity? Isn’t this just another attempt to make Christianity palatable to our age? Like Bultmann’s demythylogizing project, or Von Harnack’s Historical Jesus, etc.Just asking. I’m way, way over my head here.


  3. george: I wouldn’t say you’re over your head, any more than all of us are. The grace is admitting it freely and often. The instant you don’t feel over your head, you’ve plunged into idolatry, or hubris, or both.I don’t buy into Spong’s view of Christianity entirely, but he has some good points. I think that, whether we make our beliefs more palatable to a given age, the age we find ourselves in will be part of what determines our beliefs whether we realize it and admit it or not.As older ideas of deity break down in light of modern experience, especially in the light of revolutions in science like evolution and relativity and hubble’s discovery of the expanding universe (and, thereby, a big bang at the beginning), some ideas of God will just become untenable. They’ll have to change or fall away. That, to me, is just the nature of ideas, even ideas of God.


  4. I am honored to be included as one of your “loyal opposition” aka “angry conservative bloggers,” with such company as Jim Berkley (I am not sure that’s fair to Jim though).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s