Sometimes I feel that the administration of DBU fears controversy more than it fears God. I can understand a certain level of fearing controversy, don’t get me wrong. After all, the Spanish Inquisition was controversial. There’s a tremendous danger in being in Texas. The Baptist General Convention here in Texas often represents a very significant dissenting opinion to national Baptist politics. Details are still sketchy as to what exactly happened to poor old Dave Crutchley at Southwestern Seminary, just a few minutes to the west. I guess the general story is that whatever unfairness there was there was linked to fundamentalist Baptists.

That’s something to be wary of. Personally, I would have to commend Dr. Cook for keeping DBU from becoming embroiled in the embittering Baptist political divisions.

But there is controversy, and there is controversy. Then there is politics, and there is politics. For instance (forgive me for not citing sources properly; the Writing Center would never let me get away with this), Tony Blair said not so very long ago that a politician just has to make a difficult decision sometimes; he has to pick a side. More power to Tony Blair. But then there is the sort of politics that tries to not take a side, gloss over differences, provide peaceful rhetoric in place of candidly answering a straight question. (They even do this at the cost of healthy debate! The original founders and patriots would have been appalled.) All too often, I fear the first sort of politics is our DBU sort of politics.

Well, there is the sort of politics where one can avoid all taking of sides (or pretend to, while secretly taking a side; in spite of this bit of news, Dr. Cook really did invite a very diverse group of chapel speakers this semester; maybe we have a side here at DBU; maybe we don’t). Then there is the sort of politics where one takes a side and respectfully protest the opposition; I’ve tried this before: it’s a lot of fun, and very educational for all concerned. It would be nice if more Baptists could do this.

Then there is the sort of politics where one must take a side and respectfully kill his enemies. Try this and this , for example.

Let’s take this issue, shall we? This is the USA, and a lot of people are dying. Should DBU take a side? Sides are so uncomfortable to take, I realize that. We want to be at peace with all men, but someone disagrees with both sides . . . can’t we all just get along?

Again, it’s a Duh situation. We can’t not when things like this and this and this happen in our world. I really think that taking the right side is not something to fear so much. I’d be more afraid of God, frankly, if we don’t take sides, than I’d be of taking sides if we take the right side and having to disagree with someone.

As for the Baptists, one side says Scripture is inerrant. The other side says that every believer has a certain priesthood and freedom. We could pretend there are no sides, never talk about it. I don't recommend that. We could pick a side and pretend there are no sides. Bad, bad, bad. We could pick a side and be jerks about it. Yet another bad idea. We could pick a side and be nice to our opponents while we disagree with them. That sounds ok to me. Maybe we could even have some healthy discussion.

There's a downside some of us fear: the truth will come out. The truth is that not everything is rosy in the state of Denmark. Maybe something is actually rotten (and maybe not). But it'll turn out that not all's right with the world, Baptists, DBU, and every one of us. The truth will come out that . . . we're not just a bunch of happy Christians, happy Baptists, doing our thing, going to chapel, praising the Lord. The truth will come out that . . . some of us are wrong.

Worse yet, the truth will come out that . . . controversy exists at DBU.