Comments on: Review of Wade Burleson’s Hardball Religion http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2009/02/review-of-wade-burlesons-hardball-religion.html News & Commentary About All Things Baptist Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:09:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Kevin Bussey http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2009/02/review-of-wade-burlesons-hardball-religion.html#comment-27775 Kevin Bussey Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:11:11 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=1888#comment-27775 BDW, I reviewed the book yesterday. http://kevinbussey.com/2009/04/16/book-review-hardball-feeling-the-fury-of-fundamentalism/ BDW,

I reviewed the book yesterday.

http://kevinbussey.com/2009/04/16/book-review-hardball-feeling-the-fury-of-fundamentalism/

]]> By: bapticus hereticus http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2009/02/review-of-wade-burlesons-hardball-religion.html#comment-14773 bapticus hereticus Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:07:59 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=1888#comment-14773 the book will be an interesting read as a once insider fundamentalist's account of fundamentalist leadership, to which I hope to purchase used at Amazon. and Pierce is correct about Burleson; he is late to the game of crying foul, but make no mistake about his theological leanings -- the likelihood of him including or endorsing one to a leadership position in the SBC that is not an inerrantist is zero. while he will work with a non-inerrantist, to his credit, he will not promote governance responsibilities with such, however. his kinder, gentler SBC is still fundamentalist. to date, and this may change, for Burleson may have changed, my perception of Burleson is that the issue is not really about meaningful cooperation and shared governance, but that he was not welcomed as a leader among the SBC elite. to be an elite among the elite. moreover, it is not about control, rather that he has so little of it. now, this is not to suggest he was not mistreated, for it seems he was; but was said treatment not known to him and was he not in and supportive of the movement that exiled non-inerrantists from meaningful SBC participation? it went around and it came around and it hurt. did it teach? the book will be an interesting read as a once insider fundamentalist’s account of fundamentalist leadership, to which I hope to purchase used at Amazon. and Pierce is correct about Burleson; he is late to the game of crying foul, but make no mistake about his theological leanings — the likelihood of him including or endorsing one to a leadership position in the SBC that is not an inerrantist is zero. while he will work with a non-inerrantist, to his credit, he will not promote governance responsibilities with such, however. his kinder, gentler SBC is still fundamentalist. to date, and this may change, for Burleson may have changed, my perception of Burleson is that the issue is not really about meaningful cooperation and shared governance, but that he was not welcomed as a leader among the SBC elite. to be an elite among the elite. moreover, it is not about control, rather that he has so little of it. now, this is not to suggest he was not mistreated, for it seems he was; but was said treatment not known to him and was he not in and supportive of the movement that exiled non-inerrantists from meaningful SBC participation? it went around and it came around and it hurt. did it teach?

]]>