It’s funny what we choose to remember about a specific event. I think as humans, we want to remember those things that affirm our own beliefs. Being human, I am not immune from this phenomenon. Realizing bias is important to me because it is the most fair way I know to make any sort of comment. I know that I am biased and have pre-conceived notions of how people interact and strong opinions about various issues of the day. On the positive side, it means that I care. On the negative side, I can have selective hearing that over time become convenient memories. I’m certain that without any great effort on my part, I will hear what I want to hear and filter out the rest.

Having said all that, various reactions to MOAC 2004(tm) have demonstrated different things. In part, I believe that each commentator had their own expectations and hopes. Another part, as I said earlier, was an idea of how things should be. So more than anything, I truly believe that the reaction the conference is a small window into the hopes and hearts of the posters.

My own commentary focused on Dr. Reese and Steve Staten’s messages, even though I listened to all of day one’s messages. I wanted to hear something different, a new perspective. I wanted to hear about fellowship with other churches. I wanted to hear that the ‘book is not closed’ on what our fellowship of churches need to change. I chose not to hear a comment on bloggers made by one speaker. I chose not to hear references to so-called ‘discipling’ and to our fellowship’s distinctiveness. I had all kinds of reactions to things said, especially to everyone’s determination to claim that we are still unified.

More later..