The current ASA Statement of Faith is certainly not my property but as
one of the members of the committee that drafted it I do have some insight into
its rationale. The basic thing we wanted to do was to make the
orgaization open
to all those who had appropriate training in science and who confessed the
essentials of the historic Christian faith. In particular, at least two of the
members on the committee wanted it to be clear that Roman Catholics
were welcome
to join. That had been problematic with the previous statement.
I doubt that Bultmann would have had a fundamental problem with the
theological statements, though he didn't care squat about science.
I don't recall any particular reflection on Christian
Scientists, though
we were aware that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons would not be able to accept
the statement in good faith because of the reference to the ecumenical creeds.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
JW Burgeson wrote:
> Terry wrote, in part: "I know that it is politically incorrect to say what
> I'm about to say, but I will say it."
>
> Count me as one person who welcomes "politically incorrect" dialog.
>
> "I suspect that most people in the ASA and on this list do regard
> Christian Science to be an unorthodox cult."
>
> I would probably temper that somewhat, although I don't know a lot about CS.
> I'd observe that they are certainly unorthodox -- in the same way as process
> theologians and the advocates of "open theism." Yeah -- I'd include Roman
> Catholics in that classification too. And I have close friends, and several
> family members who are, thus, "unorthodox." I certainly do not "read any of
> them out of the Christian family."
>
> "The ASA statement of faith is very "big-tent" and points to the
> Apostles' and Nicene creed as fundamental statements of orthodoxy as
> being accurate statements of the teaching of scripture. These are the
> classic Christian creeds defining the Trinity and the Incarnation. In
> general, we do not regard as Christians those who disagree with these
> doctrines (part of what it means to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord
> and Savior is to agree with the teachings of these creeds)."
>
> Hmm. When you say "we" in the above, do you mean to speak for all in the
> ASA? I personally have no problems with the recitation of the Apostle's
> Creed as part of my own church service; I say it because I hold it to be
> confessionally accurate. Can't speak to the Nicene because I'm not up to
> speed on it. But I think that Rudolf Bultman did not agree with these
> creeds; and certainly was not orthodox; but I've read his stuff closely; w/o
> agreeing with his position I am personally not able to label him as "not a
> Christian."
>
> "I speak as an ASA member who is zealous to maintain the "evangelical"
> integrity of our group and our discussions."
>
> The word "evangelical" in there bothers me, I guess. I'm probably not an
> "evangelical," although I suppose it must turn on one's understanding of
> that word. I do know that from time to time I review the ASA statement of
> faith and have never seen anything there which suggests I am nor eligible. I
> have a very close friend of 40+ years who is a Catholic priest; I would see
> no reason he would not equally be eligible. But perhaps others see this
> differently.
>
> Thanks for the comments, Terry. And I see this discussion as proper for the
> LISTSERV. It speaks to foundational issues, after all.
>
> Hoss (aka Burgy)
>
> http://www.burgy.50megs.com
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 27 2002 - 02:19:11 EDT