On the other hand, I think that there is a disconnect going on. He clearly sees the non-signers as not simply of a different opinion, but not yet coming to the right conclusion, and that’s unfortunate.

I don’t want to be a wet blanket or an automatic naysayer. After all, I wanted an apology public or private and I got a public one, so shouldn’t I be happy with that? Maybe it sounds hollow to me because it does not sound like a real apology. Maybe the right thing for me is to accept a semi-apology for the sake of maintaining peace. I honestly do not know. It certainly doesn’t seem fair.

Mark - You’re not in error, you’re emergent.

so if this was not his intended meaning then being humble enough to have someone else view it, to insure that his meaning is coming accross correctly, and that he is not over stepping his bounds.

but that is my opinion.

I think BW truly didn’t see how this came across to non-signers. He knew his own intentions, and he was hearing criticism that he didn’t understand.

The fact that he wrote the apology says a lot. Maybe at the time it didn’t seem like he listened, but in the end he came around.

Alan

I’m just waiting for one of us to refer to the other as “In Error.” If I do it first, somebody slap me, ok?

I still think it is constructive, especially from a political standpoint.

He should not have been brought to this point of view by a few people pointing out his contradiction. He already claimed this point of view by writing the UP(and the Q&A) in the first place. Yes we all make mistakes, but this was a big one.

As an aside, I feel like ‘they’ have already given up on me. I do not know what your email exchange was like, but mine was a constant effort to stay focused on the issue and not discuss me. I did not help matters by responding in kind instead of turning the other cheek.

In the introductory paragraph he characterizes himself as having “stumbled in many ways” and specifically in the writing of the previous article. He took responsibility for the miscommunication and apologized for it.

Then he said unequivocally that the non-signing churches can have valid reasons for not signing, and that they still are brothers and sisters and should be treated that way. Either he thought that all along, or he came around to that point of view. In either case I appreciate that he is there now and has stated it clearly and publicly for all to see.

So I think we should appreciate this as a constructive step. Maybe it is not the perfect apology (I don’t see a lot wrong with it). But it is helpful and that sort of thing should be met with appreciation and encouragement. If we rebuff all their conciliatory efforts, nobody could blame them for giving up on people like us.

Just my opinion

Alan

I also find the half baked “I’m sorry you took it that way” apology to be a great example of worldly sorrow to include in the Sin and Repentance study.

In the His Needs, Her Needs vein of things, it points out that arguments get into trouble when a person tries to defend themselves with intent. For example, if I am getting my wife punch and I accidentally elbow her and bloody her nose - saying “I didn’t mean to” doesn’t stop the bleeding. She’s aware that you didn’t mean to hit her, the issue is her bleeding, not your intent. The same is true in an argument.

This holds true even if intent is questioned.