Religious Politics, Part 2
Okay, so I’ve had a night to cool off from my last rant. Cool down...cool down. I had two thoughts this morning.
It doesn’t bother me so much that they disagree with me. On the contrary, that’s what I look for in a professional society of thinkers. I will not grow as a thinking individual if I just sit around with people who always nod their heads and say "Yes, Eric, of course you’re right." Wrong. I NEED people disagreeing with me. What I don’t like are false assumptions and blanket statements about me and those like me that basically state my ideas are probably rooted in falsehood of some sort. This goes back to the "don’t insult me; talk to me" thing.
Second, I just find it highly ironic that the society would pick this to unite on and not, say, something like the belief in the existence of God. Of course they CAN’T unite on that, just like they can’t truly unite on politics (though they can apparently get a majority). The society is a loosely coupled group of scholars who meet to discuss, not canonize, points in regard to the Bible and related literature. And it needs to stay that way. And I need something like SBL. I couldn’t sign ETS’ doctrinal statement, so I don’t have the option of making it my society of choice.
I would voice my response directly, but I have let my membership lapse. Not for political or religious reasons, but just because I’ve needed to save money. This year I was able to get into the annual meeting as an exhibitor with the NET Bible folks, so I wasn’t required to sign up to get in. But, I’ve been meaning to renew. And I’m not going to let something like this stop me.