No, I Do Not Accept Your Apology, Dr. Bob Jones

Thenewcivilrightsmovment.com reports on a significant apology from one of the most outspoken anti-gay leaders in America.

Thirty-five years ago, Dr. Bob Jones III, grandson of the founder and current chancellor of Bob Jones University, made this statement during a White House protest:

"But it would not be a bad idea to bring the swift justice today that was brought in Israel’s day against murder and rape and homosexuality. I guarantee it would solve the problem post-haste if homosexuals were stoned, if murderers were immediately killed as the Bible commands."

Dr. Jones finally attempted an apology with these words:  

"I take personal ownership for this inflammatory rhetoric. This reckless statement was made in the heat of a political controversy 35 years ago. It is antithetical to my theology and my 50 years of preaching a redeeming Christ who came into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Upon now reading these long-forgotten words, they seem to me as words belonging to a total stranger — were my name not attached. I cannot erase them, but wish I could, because they do not represent the belief of my heart or the content of my preaching. Neither before, nor since, that event in 1980 have I ever advocated the stoning of sinners." 

BJ Unity, a movement in support of LGBTQI people who are harmed by Bob Jones University and other Fundamentalist Christian organizations, accepted his apology with this statement:

"We are grateful that Bob Jones III has taken responsibility for these words; words that have caused deep harm for many more people than any of us knows. This means a lot to us because it represents the beginning of a change in the rhetoric and conversation."

Thenewcivilrightsmovement.com asks if its readers accept this apology. I do not and here's why. The entire statement of Dr. Jones is all about Dr. Jones. He regrets these words because they don't represent him, they are in opposition to his theology, he never preached such a sentiment, he wishes they could be erased. Nowhere in his full statement is any forgiveness even asked for. It is a statement of personal regret. 

But here's the main reason for not accepting this "apology." There is not one word in the full statement that addresses the LGBT community or even begins to acknowledge the tremendous harm  begun thirty-five years ago that continues to this day. Not one word. When he finally gets around to the supposed apology, here's what he wrote:

"I apologize for the reflection those remarks bring upon Jesus Christ, Whom I love; Bob Jones University, which I have loved and served; and my own personal testimony."

There you have it. His victims are invisible to him and remain outside his purview. The real people who initially bore the brunt of his remarks and their successors today remain invisible to him. His apology needs to be addressed to the very people he threatened with stoning. Until that happens, I'm sorry, Dr. Jones, I can't accept your feeble effort to redeem your conscience. It's too little, too late; not just for me, but mostly for your victims.

The Problem with an Infallible Bible: You're Not!

The late Harold Lindsell, a prominent Evangelical leader, stated that, "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective". (The Battle for the Bible. Zondervan, 1978, p.31)  The key phrase, "it cannot deceive us," is the source of the problem. Couple this with biblical literalism and the problem is compounded. For those who believe in infallibility and literalism believe they can read it essentially without error. "The Bible cannot deceive me; therefore, I am not deceived."

You may have wondered why conservative Christians (mostly the leaders) are so sure of themselves. Well, this is part of the explanation. "I understand (literally) what the Bible says, so I have every right to conclude that it is the truth, and those who disagree with me are wrong."  Wrong, even though they come from the same two understandings and approach the Bible the same way. Those who don't come from the same a priori starting point are wrong by definition.

Simply put, the problem with an infallible Bible is that for it to have any value, you need to be an infallible reader. Many have tried to wear the mantle of (practical) infallibility and crown their hubris by consigning to hell (in the most excessive examples) those who would disagree. The Roman Catholic Church relies on an infallible pope, although papal infallibility has been used only once since it was proclaimed in 1870 to make the Assumption of Mary into heaven an Article of faith.

The notion of Absolute Truth is also subject to the same problem of identifying just what it is. Since we are all, as humans, finite beings, we cannot comprehend Absolute Truth. We can only approach it. The absolute cannot dwell in the finite. This is not to say there is no Absolute Truth; only that it is not a helpful notion so long as we think knowing it is possible. So approaching the biblical text must be done in great humility, our conclusions must be open to adjustment at all times, and our openness to other points of view must be observed with respectful consideration. You may not end up with The Truth, but you will be practicing Christian charity. And that's a pathway to a more expansive understanding of the Bible than thinking you have already arrived will ever take you.