How could NABT not see that their original statement included a
theological position? And, according to Scott's description of their
re-thinking -- "the letter and its request were considered by the Board of
Directors on Wednesday, October 8. The Board initially voted to retain the
extant wording" -- the Board *still* thought their original statment was
theologically neutral.
Evidently there is a wide gap (re: a definition of "neutral") between
the NABT leaders and most of us. Do you think this gap is intentional (so
they know their stance is non-neutral, but they want it to be that way), or
is there an inability to communicate (so we can't see their viewpoint, and
vice versa)?
Craig R