I understand Andrew's perplexity, having myself sensed that many of
my posts have not received the attention I thought they warranted. I
will not assume the role of instructor to Andrew, but I will express
how I have reacted to this situation, for whatever it may be worth to
him and to any others who, for whatever reason, may find themselves
in a similar situation.
First, I conclude that my posts apparently tend not to connect with
the interests or viewpoints of many on the list, at least not among
those who post frequently.
Next, I consider possible causes for this failure to connect. 1) I
ask or say things reflecting so much ignorance that they are hard to
answer. (My kids ask such questions all the time, and I figure they
inherited that tendency from SOMEBODY! Since their mother does NOT
ask such questions, I assume the problem lies with me. :-) ) 2) I
have stated my case with such clarity and force that nothing remains
to be said. Discard this possibility out of hand. 3) The content of
my posts is not worth responding to. This would be a subjective
estimate on the part of those who read them, possibly reflecting the
value of my content, and possibly reflecting the validity of their
estimate. 4) The fact that my signature identifies me with Bob Jones
University automatically makes me PERSONA NON GRATA with many.
I have already ruled out #2. I do not know to what degree #4 may be
true, although I can say that more than one member of the B-Greek
staff has been cordial toward my participation, at least early on. #1
is certainly a possibility, but I rather think that #3 comes closest.
Apparently I tend to operate on a different wavelength from that of
many list members, making it hard for us to know what to say to one
another.
Finally, I consider possible responses I could make. I could go on
the list and whine a little about being ignored, hoping to generate
sympathy and pats on the back that will make me feel better. This
approach, however much reassurance it might generate, would do
nothing in the long run to establish a better connection between my
thinking and that of other list members, and it would bring no real
change to the situation. I choose, instead, to take the approach that
I will pipe down, will listen in on the discussions in order to gain
what I can from them, will contribute where I think I have something
worth saying, and will chalk up a lack of response to one of the
points listed above, content with the uncertainty about the exact
cause. If and when I become convinced that I'm no good to the list
and the list is no good to me, I will simply unsubscribe. I see no
point in trying to make the list into what I think it should be; I
will accept it as it is or else bow out.
I do not mean to suggest that Andrew was simply trying to generate
sympathy. He put forth what he called an honest question, and I will
not read between the lines. However, I would not have proposed that
question in this forum, because it does not seem to me to be the kind
of question that leads to clarification. What kind of answer might be
expected? Few who reject inerrancy are going to say that they
consider an inerrantist incapable of real scholarship, either because
they genuinely do not think so or simply because they wish to avoid
an email brawl. And the inerrantists aren't the right people to
answer this question, because doing so would require them to speak
for their opponents, which I have learned by hard experience is
always a dangerous position to assume.
So I would say to myself, to Andrew, and to any others in our
situation, let's not be like children who complain when they can't
fit into a game their companions are playing. The game is underway,
and the people playing it have made up their minds about how it's to
be played. Let those who can and wish to play do so. Let those who
want to be spectators do so. Let those who rise as leaders in the
game introduce what modifications they can lead others to accept. And
let those who don't care for the game as it's being played either be
content to play it the best they can, patiently develop the
leadership required to change the way it's played, or else find
another group playing another game they can accept and fit into.
****************************
In Love to God and Neighbor,
Randy Leedy
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC
RLeedy@bju.edu
****************************