STRANGERS WHEN WE MEET
(Retold by Rex Ray 11-14-06)
Denton, Texas 1978: a young black man asked an older man (Hez) if a house was for rent.
“No, it’s for sale. Where’re you from?
“No one has heard of my town, Yellow Knife, Canada.”
“I spent two weeks there. “How come you’re so far from home?
“I was on a high school hockey team that won a gold medal in the first Artic Winter Games in 1968. They gave us a four year scholarship and now I’m working on a PHD. I almost didn’t get to play as there was a fuss if I was eligible or not. They called some American to decide. If it hadn’t been for him, I’d be working in the gold minds now.”
Hez said, “So you got to play even thought you’d only been in that school 5 weeks.”
“How’d you know that?”
“I’m that American.”
After a hug, Hez explained his two weeks in Yellow Knife helping to organize the games. At the time, he was Parks and Recreation Director of Fairbanks, Alaska and had been selected by the governor to explain to Canada why Alaska was not going to participate as they didn’t have the money. They planed for only adults to participate. Hez told the authorities he wouldn’t walk across the street to see some old guys play games, but he’d work hard to help kids play, and others would too. They howled that’d cost too much money. Hez said Alaska was out if they didn’t include kids, and they finally agreed. The Alaska governor threw a fit, but Hez organized a benefit drive and they had the games.
Today, twenty-seven countries are in the Artic Winter Games. The present authorities want to celebrate their 40th anniversary in 2008 with Hez meeting the hockey player again, but no one remembers the player’s name. Does anyone know?
Hez is my twin brother.
Rex Ray

Sunday November 5, 2006 by Rex Ray
Art Rogers suggested I put this comment on my blog.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy [10 pages]
Preface
Page 1: [We] do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight.

[Does this mean a person does NOT have to agree with ‘inerrancy’ to be in the SBC? A pastor said the Bible was the true word of God and the perfect message to mankind, but the Bible was not inerrant. Said he had been given the name ‘moderate’ and guessed he didn’t belong. He was told on October 24, 2006, “I do not believe the SBC is the best convention for your participation and cooperation.”

Is this not “creedal weight’?

Articles of Affirmation and Denial
Page 3, Article 2: We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

[The BFM is “our doctrinal guideline” which tells what the Bible means and that would make it higher than the Bible. If it continues until it covers all points of the Bible, the Bible will be replaced by man’s words.]

Page 4, Article 9: We affirm that inspiration, through not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterances on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or falseness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.

[How can Bible writers have “true and trustworthy utterances on all matters”, and on the other hand, write “falseness”?]

Page 5, Article 14: We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved violate the truth claims of the Bible.

[In Ecclesiastes 1:5, the writer said the sun travels around the earth. I agree this error does not disprove John 3:16.]

Page 5, Article 19: We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

[Is this saying if a person believes in “infallibility” of Scripture but NOT “inerrancy” of Scripture, that person is a second class Christian because they cannot “understand” the whole of Christian faith, and cannot have “increasing conformity to the image of Christ?
Sounds like Jews believing they were better Christians that Gentiles even though Paul said Jews were the weaker brother because Jews thought they couldn’t eat meat sacrificed to idols.]

Page 5, More on Article 19: We further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

[Does “grave consequences” mean burned at the stake, rejected from the SBC, or only snubbed?]

Exposition
The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by…reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. Where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

[1. “Reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan.)”
Would false statements also include man’s ignorance, bad memory, confusion, deception, and stupidity?
2. “Where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God [tell God] by trusting His assurance [or the Chicago assurance] that His Word is true [except for the untruth of man.]
3. “One day they [discrepancies] will be seen to have been illusions.”
Is this saying one day parts of the Bible will be as an illusion; that it’s not inerrant today, but one day it will be inerrant?

To be inerrantists, you must see parts of the Bible as illusions, and believe those that can’t see illusions are second class Christians.
Hey! That’s right up there with the king having a perfect suit until someone said he was naked
I believe the devil hit a homerun by getting Christians fighting over one word. A better word for ‘fighting’ is ‘persecution’ of moderates by inerrantists.

In summery of the Chicago Statement, I’d say it’s a recipe that ‘conservatives’ have for believing the Bible.
Moderates have their own receipt for believing the Bible and both recipes produce the same Gospel, the same major beliefs, and even the same minor beliefs.
So why argue which recipe has to be accepted when they produce the same ‘cake’? (Last line stolen from Bob Cleveland)
Rex Ray