Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

George wrote: "I hesitate to suggest this for several reasons, but
perhaps it's time to discuss
the ASA taking an official stance against YEC. "

I see several reasons why that would not be a good thing to do.

1. It sets a precedence for the ASA taking other stances, for or against
other positions. As the ASA does so, it would become a narrower and
narrower group, eventually talking only to ourselves (if any here were
left).

2. YECs are still among our membership. I presume that would wish to
leave.

3. YEC articles are still accepted in the journal and on this LISTSERV.
That would probably cease.

4. It would be an uncivil thing to do.

5. It would further marginalize those with YEC views, encouraging them to
see those with other views as "enemy."

6. It would encourage those of us with non-YEC views to see YECs as
"enemy."

7. I just submitted a book review to PERSPECTIVES on THE FRACTURE OF GOOD
ORDER by Bivins. That review is on my site at
www.burgy.50megs.com/fracture.htm

Bivins analyses three illiberal organizations (YEC is not among them) who
exhibit some of the YEC attributes of forming their arguments on
scriptural grounds. Read my review; better still, read the book. Part of
my review reads as follows:

"What should our reaction be to an antiliberal group? Should we
marginalize it by ignoring its message and refusing it a place at the
political dialog table? Bivins argues that this is what is generally done
(witness the courts' refusal to let the Berrigans state their grounds in
court for their actions), and that such a course of action is precisely
wrong. In modern culture, there are (page 167) "...tacit assumptions
about what constitute socially acceptable religion, assumptions that
function to exclude certain forms of religion from the conversation."
Bivins contends that the resulting animosity can be addressed, and at
least partially overcome, by a fuller public engagement with antiliberal
group spokespeople. At the very least, such actions would address a key
antiliberal criticism against the political culture. Bivins draws on the
writings of Stephen Carter for support. Both argue that religions ought
not be dismissed as illegitimate participants in political discourse. He
writes (page 174) that "Liberalism's goals are worth protecting, but the
effort ... has too often employed antidemocratic mechanisms that
constrain participation ... Liberalism can better survive ... by
welcoming multiple forms of action .. Such an approach may actually
better serve to protect individual liberty and public civility ... ."

In the above, the word "liberalism" does NOT refer to the left as in
"right vs left," but to the political tradition usually associated with
John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and others.

In short, the preceding argument, based to some extent on Mill's ON
LIBERTY, suggests that we (the ASA) give more argument space and
attention to YEC, not less, letting their arguments be fully exposed, and
that thereby those arguments will be more quickly and decisively refuted.
 What happens now is that the "conspiracy theory" held by some YECs is
really really believed by some of their audience. But Bivins explains it
much better than I can.

Burgy

www.burgy.50megs.com/shadows.htm (Into the Shadows)

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Fri Dec 26 13:46:16 2003