Reading some of the responses to his post
--"these are unbiblical views"--
--"[Such a] view . . . is clearly not Biblical"--
etc.
reminds me of something I have been trying to figure out how best to post here. So what I am about to say won't be "best," but at least it will be said.
This past weekend I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Clarence Menninga, professor emeritus of Geology at Calvin College. We were discussing old earth/young earth issues and he noted, "Many people try to set the Bible against science (or vice versa). But that is an inappropriate comparison. It is not the Bible against science. It is theology against science. The Bible provides the data on which theologians work, just as rocks provide the data on which scientists work. Science is an interpretation of data every bit as much as theology is an interpretation of data."
Put another way:
Science is to Theology as
Rocks are to the Bible.
--More on this theme at another time.
I am not sure why you were "astonished" at the fact that I stand up for decent treatment of someone with a radically different perspective. Weren't you the one who praised my General Science book for having the most even-handed discussion you had ever seen when it came to the age of the earth? Weren't you the one who told me you were impressed with how cordial the debate you witnessed between me and an old-earther was? How in the world could that astonish you?
ReplyDeleteOh. my. goodness, Jay! Please forgive me for my horrible expression. I meant to communicate virtually the exact opposite of what I can understand you took away from my horrendously ill-phrased sentence. (And I certainly understad why you took that message away. It is my fault completely!)
ReplyDeleteI am astonished not that you would do what you did, per se. Rather, I am astonished that, considering the cost you would say anything at all. I, myself, have felt so beaten up by Mr. Ham and certain other “leaders“ in the homeschool movement (especially certain “leaders“ here in Colorado) that I have been extremely fearful to say much of anything. I have said some things, but I have been far more silent--part of the reason for the title of this blog [“Forbidden Questions“!]--than I would prefer.
I would prefer that questions and proposed solutions or “answers“ could be discussed openly and freely. But that cannot happen in an environment where any expression even (as in your case) of a desire for Christian charity and civility and honesty and grace to be expressed toward a brother who holds a different opinion on some matter leads to cries of outrage from brothers and sisters on “the other side.“
I have been fearful. And I am not “even“ anywhere near to being in the forefront of the homeschool community (as I perceive you are).
Yet you, you who had a potentially huge price to pay for taking such a principled stand, you took the stand anyway. I think that is what astonished me.
I have been following the . . . ummm . . . "dialog" that has taken place since you made your post. You have maintained an unwavering commitment to graciousness, patience, sincerity, integrity, honor, honesty--all the things you pleaded for in behalf of Enns. Some of your commenters have been absolutely vicious.
Again, that is what is astonishing to me: that you would have posted anything at all, in the first place, knowing--or having an inkling suspicion, I would guess--of what might come your way for daring to speak up for a brother who holds an obviously unpopular view among your prime (or, I hope not, formerly prime) audience.
Once more, I ask you to please forgive me for failing properly to express what I really meant.
I‘m not sure I‘ve done that now, but I hope so.
You certainly have done that, John. I appreciate your clarification! I guess part of the problem was that so many of my supposed "brothers and sisters" in Christ have attacked me, I am predisposed to read comments on this issue in that way.
ReplyDeleteI am deeply appreciative of what you have said in this clarification. Thank you so much!