Re: Revelation

Kevin Wirth (kevin.wirth@accessone.com)
Sun, 1 Oct 95 17:38:13 PDT

>To Jim Bell, Kevin Wirth, and to all:
>
>I STRONGLY suggest that we drop this discussion on "un-orthodoxy".
>Regardless of how we might feel about Glenn's views, the charge of
>un-orthodoxy is a very strong and serious charge, and I know Glenn has
>felt deeply hurt by it. The fact is he does not see the charge as being
>valid - nor do I.
>
>Even if I did feel the charge were valid, I do not see how a forum such as
>this can proceed with remarks such as this being aired to the forum as a
>whole. IT IS UGLY! If someone feels that a brother or sister has strayed
>so far from the faith as to need correction or warning, for God's sake,
>and for his or hers, send a private message stating clearly what charges
>are being made and why.
>
>If this kind of ugliness continues, I will find it necessary to reevaluate
>my participation in the reflector.
>
>Gordie

Hmmmm.... You know, the term unorthodox does not strike ME as being
all that offensive. I find some of Glenn's views to be offensive, but I
haven't
said I'm going to pull the plug and *reevaluate my participation on this re-
flector*. Sorry you feel that way Gordie. Allow me to add a little bit to
your
perspective.

I have been VERY dismayed at some of the things Glenn has said. And he
has made it very clear that he intends to continue arguing his points. Fine.
He has the right. But I'm still here, still reading, still weeping, still
shaking
my head -- sometimes *yes*, and sometimes *no way!*.

Look -- I didn't intend for my use of the term to be an attack on Glenn. I
think
he's reached some conclusions which are unsupportable -- and if they ARE
unorthodox, then let's not shrink from saying so. Such remarks need not be
taken as a personal attack, especially if they were not intended to be.

I viewed Jim's original comment as one made in passing, which ob-
viously touched a nerve in Glenn. Now, if the *unorthodox* comments were
being delivered in a manner which obviously showed malice, or a deliberate
attempt to be truly *ugly*, I could understand your concern. But I didn't see
it that way. I think what's really more important here is the manner in which
we address some of these issues, instead of avoiding them. You can't have
your cake and eat it too Gordie. You can't have Glenn essentially *correcting*
a bunch of us for our perspective on age of the earth, the creation of Adam,
the flood, and etc.and then tell us we should privately *correct* Glenn if we
see something. Glenn, as I see it, is attempting to apply MASSIVE
correction to the perspectives held by many in this forum -- but I don't take
it as Glenn attacking ME. I see it as a challenge to my perspective, and I
think that anything which likewise challenges Glenn's perspective is fair
game, in public. I have written private letters to Glenn because I felt some
of my comments were not appropriate for general consumption in this
forum. But I think you're reaching on this one Gordie. Is really too much
of a stretch for you to see some of Glenn's views as a challenge to
orthodoxy? What all of that means is yet another discussion...

I think most of us understand that Glenn is attempting to make better sense
of scripture and science, and though most of us can appreciate that, it still
doesn't change the fact that some of his views may be unorthodox.

So Gordie, I'm sorry about Glenn's hurt feelings. But as long as the comments
I or anyone makes here are not ad hominem attacks -- and are within the realm
of general decency (I know all of these boundaries have been tested in this
forum from time to time), then I really have to say that I am not quite
willing to
let go of something just because Glenn gets his feelings hurt.

Let's not forget something else here. What Glenn has done is launch out into
a HIGHLY controversial area. I don't see him changing his perspective much,
so one of the things of value here is to take a look at the impact of his ideas.
I really do believe that one of the areas of that impact has to do with the per-
ception of *orthodox* views; whether those views are holy or not is yet
another matter. But the issue is worth examination, since many of Glenn's
views do challenge orthodox views. Use another term if you want to, but
don't suggest we ignore this, because discussion about it is needed.

I have to say I think it's time to affirm our respect for Glenn, but also tell
him to grow some tougher skin. I've had to. So have a lot of the rest of us.
In the meantime, maybe we should ask Glenn how we could discuss this
issue in a manner which would be the least upsetting for him, and for the
rest of us to comply with that to whatever extent we see fit.

So -- Glenn? Let's hear from you about what you think of this and how YOU
would like to frame any future discussions of this issue. I understand your
frustration (and yours too Gordie) -- but hey -- let's not just drop the
discussion
entirely here. That's not acceptable to me, and I'd be willing to bet that
holds
true for others in this forum as well.

========================
Kevin Wirth
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027
(206) 391-3698 Voice
(206) 392-0192 FAX