That’s news to me. Please see the link and let me know if any of the notable signers were against integration.
That particular group, perhaps not, but the conservative masses, yes. The author argues that the mass of people were really quite atheologic but inerrancy struck a chord that could support because it aligned with their social and political structural ideas.
In looking at the list, no doubt many changed their positions with time, but I see a few that had positions expressed that supported segregation, like Criswell, and many like MacArthur and Paige Patterson that were and probably are very patriarical.
One for Criswell who in the 1950s supported segregation and in the 1960s spoke against it. You brought up the race issue. I don’t see it represented in this group of leaders who more than anything represented the evangelical inerrancy crowd at that time.
Pointing to an unspecified mass or group of people isn’t much different than pointing to a group on the far right today and who are also barely on the fringe of Christianity.
Patriarchy or male headship in marriage and church government is another issue. You judge their hearts so easily. It would be interesting to see from God’s POV which of those men truly loved the Bible as God’s sure and steadfast Word.
Homosexuality is a bigger issue today. Without inerrancy, it’s perfectly ok. With it, and you have to do some spectacular gymnastics (that don’t really land) to get around the prohibition.
So unlike the Sprouls and Packers at the time (as well as the men who made up their churches and classrooms) that means they didn’t take the Bible or inerrancy that seriously. The doctrine was appropriated as a kind of authoritarian sledge hammer. I’ll accept that (as a valid critique).
I am sure those sort of things are common in our lives as well. We have a position or belief, and then grab hold of whatever is around that supports it. Haidt proposed that we make emotional decisions, then rationalize them with our intellect rather than make making rational decisions that are correct based on reason most of the time.
5 Likes
I wonder if it is a rational or emotional expectation to suppose Haidt will not consider what reason can and cannot determine about the world.
That’s called ‘motivated reasoning’ I believe.
Ideology is another word. There are interesting neurological studies that detail this. I came across them in a book on consciousness I commented about here. It has to do with how the brain will make contradictory data fit or unconsciously fill in missing data.
It’s really quite unsettling, and more so given the question of consciousness and its existence.
1 Like
He said to him “…they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
Luke 16:21
Yep. Even in spite of contrary objective evidence, people can convince themselves otherwise to accord with their comfort and contentment in a decadeslong practiced ideology.
2 Likes
And as it relates to evangelical teachers, “each one’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one’s work.”
3 Likes
“Asking someone, “Are you pro- or anti- the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” is so 1980s that it’s like asking someone, “Do you prefer VHS or Beta for your VCR?”
The Bible is still a contested book& we must rise to meet the contest, it is just that the contest has changed.”
Kristin Kobes De Muz
1 Like
For example, it’s nail biting to read this comment on Du Mez’s response to a simple question asked of her about homosexuality:
“To be sure, this was simply a grand exercise in word games, where an author who is capable of producing clear, coherent arguments deliberately chooses to muddy the waters, while casting aspersions on contrary thought.”
Edit: I added the emphasis on deliberately, as it may well be in that grey space between conscious and unconscious intention, similar to what was said about ideology.
1 Like
It’s unfortunate that he uses the phrase “a plain reading of Scripture” since of course that is the false flag that YECs raise.
A careful reading? The arguments for it, have been genuinely intelligent, so I wouldn’t say a “plain reading” is sufficient.
Couldn’t find out from a web search if the author is YEC, OEC, or EC… I would have loved to figure that out.
1 Like
His M.Div is from Moody, so that may be indicative.
1 Like
He also reformed… so it’s a real guess.
Anyone who is not a YEC would not use that phrase though!
1 Like
Yes, compelling evidence for certain 
1 Like
Sorry for the digression, but I was reminded tonight of Kierkegaard’s rant about “the crowd is untruth.” This stuck out on equality and loving one’s neighbor:
“To honor every individual human being, unconditionally every human being, is fear of God and love of neighbor… If everyone in truth loved the neighbor as himself, then would perfect human equality be unconditionally attained.”
Note Kierkegaard’s emphasis on unconditionally honoring and loving the neighbor. Who does that include? Everyone. Preachers of hate and exclusion aren’t preachers of Christ.
2 Likes