On January 22, 2008 I printed a post entitled "Onward, Thinking Baptist" in which I reminisced about a trip I took to the home of Dr. Leon Marsh. The point of the post was to capitalize on something that Dr. Marsh said about being a "Thinking Baptist." Instead, my ineptitude and slap-dash writing led to offense. I am ashamed.
Here is the section wherein I discussed my recollection of the conversation:
Dr. Marsh and I do not agree on many things. He claims to be a 3 point Calvinist with a laugh. His idea of inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures are not the same. I did not argue with him but I let him have say his mind. I enjoyed his banter and candidness if not his theology. His love of Christ was evident, and his joy at our visit was apparent. I was thankful to have gone and hope to go back.
The first sentence is just dumb. Dr. Marsh and I agree on many things. What an absolutely idiotic thing to say, and I cannot imagine what I was thinking. We may not agree on a few things, but on the overwhelming majority of all things important, I amen whatever he said. The second line was meant to reveal his humor. Instead, it reaveled my inability to communicate his wit and only served to expose my inability to articulate things. The third line is awful by any measure. I wrote, "His idea of inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures are not the same." Same as what? Same as the Pope's? I meant to say the same as mine. I said this because Dr. Marsh said a couple of things that I did not agree with. Now, that could be due to a couple of reasons: 1) I did not understand what Dr. Marsh was saying. or 2) We disagree.
This apology is not meant to be a parsing of what is meant by inerrancy or infallibility, so I will cut straight to the chase: Dr. Marsh believes in and spent his life teaching that the Bible is completely, wholly, and totally true. My statement was foolish because of my omission of the words "like mine" and the use of shibboleths like "inerrant" and "infallible" left the impression that Dr. Marsh did not have a high view of Scripture. That is an awful thing to do flippantly, and I am ashamed.
Let me go ahead and skip to the part where I wrote "I enjoyed his banter if not his theology." This is so sloppy that I am afraid to continue writing if I cannot do any better than this. What theology did I disagree with? As I stated before, Dr. Marsh and I may not agree on some things like "3 Point" Calvinism. But to imply that I did not like his 'theology' is just awful. What I meant to say was that I really enjoyed Dr. Marsh's wit even if I did not agree with everything he said. That is so much better than what I wrote. And in case anyone thinks that it is a 'big deal' for me not to agree with everything Dr. Marsh says, let me make it clear that I do not even agree with everything that I have said, especially on January 22, 2008 in the post that prompted this apology.
In the end, just about the only thing I like in the original post and can wholly endorse are these words: His love of Christ was evident, and his joy at our visit was apparent. I was thankful to have gone and hope to go back. Dr. Marsh, I apologize, and I hope that you forgive me. I do hope to make that return visit soon in dust and ashes or with your favorite cake, whichever will help you forget my blog post the quickest.
We Must Do the Impossible
4 years ago