Glenn Morton wrote:
> In a move which surely must cause a bit of embarrassment for the ID group,
> Phil Johnson and other ID members, Rev. Sun Myung Moon has proclaimed "that
> Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha - even God - have told him he is now 'the Savior,
> Messiah and King of Kings of all of humanity!'"
> http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/3641062.htm
>
> This may have some impact on the ID movement but to explain why requires
> some background.
>
> Keith Miller, in Dec. 1999 published a note with Jonathan Well's web papers
> proclaiming that he was a Moonie. Keith attached a note from Phillip Johnson
> at the bottom. Johnson acknowledges that he knew Wells is a Moonie but
> frankly expresses a big yawn for that knowledge. I posted a response to
> Keith's note outlining what I viewed as the ID movement's lack of concern
> for Scriptural Christianity.
> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199912/0024.html.
>
> I also had been having an e-mail conversations with Paul Nelson just
> before Keith's note. Paul had already confirmed to me that Wells was a
> Moonie and a fine fellow. He said that they merely disagreed about theology.
> I should hope so! But at what point do our attempts to create an apologetic
> become worthless for our faith?
>
> I think the question for the evangelical supporters of the ID movement and
> the Discovery Institute is: Should we support someone with views like this?
> Will Nelson and colleagues like Steve Meyer, in light of Moon's
> proclamation that he is the 'King of King for all humanity!" continue to
> encourage evangelical publishers to publish Well's stuff? Wells who now must
> believe that Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah seems to hold values quite at
> odds with conventional Christianity. It seems to me that ID has become so
> theologically neutral as to be of no value to Christianity.
Two notes on this.
1) In an odd way the Mooniness of a major ID representative may
actually be
beneficial for the movement. It appears to give some credibility to the claim
that they like to make in the public arena (when trying to influence school
curricula &c) that they're arguing for a scientific view & that religious
commitments & consequences are secondary.
2) Some years ago in my book packrat mode I picked up a copy of _The
Evangelical-Unification Dialogue_ which was held, I think, in the early 70s.
(It's in my office at church at the moment & not before me.) It's a transcript
of discussions between a few Evangelical theologians & some from the
Unification
Church. I'd never looked at it closely but a year ago sat down to look it over
a bit more carefully &, lo & behold, found that Jonathan Wells was
one of the UC
reps.
3) Finally, any value that ID might ever have had for Christianity is
outweighed by its theological defects.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 14 2002 - 19:39:39 EDT