(David Weinberger, in our discussion yesterday, said I should check out his post regarding AKMA, so on I go)
In his discussion of hermeneutics, and comparison of integral vs differential (supposing there is one right interpretation of intent of the author vs allowing or Not-insisting that there is ONE RIGHT interpretation of intent —-he makes a point that I consider important to the larger question of “unity in diversity”
“In a certain respect, these two aren’t antithetical. The unity of meaning (on a differential account) lies entirely beyond the present order- but don’t deny some sort of unity. Similarly, integralists don’t deny plurality nor do they (usually–but sc. Southern Baptist seminaries) wish by main force to impose their interpretive conclusions. “
The last point, complete with reference to the Southern Baptists, is one I feel compelled to agree , and to comment (as a somewhat embarassed Southern Baptist who does NOT support the rhetoric of insistence upon “correct interpretation” as is sought by the imposers) . I can completely confirm as accurate the implication that they intend to “enforce” some sets of requirements for “legitimate standing in the theological community”. I find this present set of Southern Baptist Leaders who are engaged in the campaigns of “disenfranchising” thousands of decent, honest, but of a “different mind” as to the interpretations of Scriptures, to be out of bounds in terms of the ethics of Chrsitian community, not becuase of their views, but because they seek to question the legitimacy of the Christian journey of those who do not agree.
In “The Southern Baptist Convention”, I express some more of the levels of disgust I have with this whole ordeal that has rolled through the Southern Baptist Copnvention for the past 20 years (I graduated from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1981, just before the fundamentalist, “liberal witch-hunt” commenced, which totally changed the face and level of education in that seminary, and sent most of its teachers elsewhere)