Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

John W Burgeson wrote:

> 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 -
        I appreciate the points you make here - up to the last. As I said to
begin with & explained in more detail later, I was hesitant about making the
suggestion. I still am.
        But I am also not convinced that the "let 1000 flowers bloom"
approach will work. The liberal tradition (in the sense in which you use the
word here) tends to assume that education & the free exchange of ideas will
lead more or less inevitably to consensus in the truth. I'd like to believe
that that was right but have my doubts.
        As to your closing paragarph: There have been many articles in PSCF
pointing out (a) scientific errors in YEC claims, (b) dubious aspects of YEC
biblical interpretation (such as Paul S's recent one) & (c) theological
alternatives to YEC. How many YECs have they convinced? How many YECs even
read them? & what reason is there to think that increasing the numbers of
such articles will produce different results? (& note that I've written some
things of type c in PSCF - I'm not just questioning the value of other
people's work).
        & there's a downside to publishing a lot of YEC related stuff.
Mainstream Christians interested in science-theology questions may look at
the journal, see such articles & wonder "What sorts of people are these to
still be arguing about _that_?" They may be turned off by the journal & ASA
as a whole.

Shalom,

George
Received on Fri Dec 26 14:04:37 2003