Well said, Jim. I think it took nearly 10 years for me to recover from a strong YEC stance. During much of that time my "heart burned within me" in some figurative sense. It just didn't seem possible that so many Christians with such a clear vocal commitment to Christianity could be so wrong. Their coupling of YEC with fundamental doctrines of incarnation and salvation made one feel instinctively that by denying YEC one is denying the fundamentals of Christianity. Or at least becoming a 'flaming liberal.' Logic doesn't remove that feeling overnight.
Randy
Jim Armstrong wrote:
You have described what I think is probably the most effective long-term approach - akin to being salt and pepper, or leavening. For most listeners, a simple single conversation cannot be persuasive enough to abruptly change their mind on matters like these. However, it can be quite informative for them that other temperate and respectable people hold to an alternative position, and for reasons they can explain and which are plausible, particularly if such explanations are offered without an accompanying demand that they be accepted. This sort of "witness" is easier to hear - by the fact that you offered the conversation, the subject is important enough to be mentioned (and perhaps why); it was offered with low confrontation, outside a context of absolutes; it sensitizes the listener to future indications that others hold similar views. This lightly confrontational approach (as opposed to rhetoric), has a better chance of persuasion in the long run because it respects the value of conversation, does not drive the listener into a defensive posture, and leaves the important ingredient of time to do its work.
I think it's important to keep in mind the rate at which we changed our minds on important matters such as these.
Thanks, Bill. JimA
Received on Mon Jan 23 15:55:54 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 23 2006 - 15:55:54 EST