Re: Concordism

>>> "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net> 06/03/06 8:50 AM >>>asks, as I
edit his post:

What is concordism?
 
My understanding of accommodationism is that which Paul (and Glenn)
describes -- the Bible shouldn't be expected to make scientific statements
which satisfy the scientific rigor of 21st century thought, because when it
was given it had to be relevant to an ANE audience.
 
But I thought that concordism was different, meaning the use of alternative
explanations to show that the Bible IS actually scientifically accurate,
such as Mesopotamian or Caspian Basin or Mediterranian floods, Hugh Ross'
long ages in Genesis 1 which are in a scientifically accurate sequence (or
so it's claimed), etc. In other words, finding "concord" between science
and scripture.
 
Am I mistaken here, or is this how these terms are generally used here?

***

Ted replies. I've written some things (some published, others not yet
published) on the history of concordism in the US, and I would say that
"concordism" means slightly different things to different authors who
endorse it. I would also distinguish a "strong concordism" from a "weak
concordism." In his famous 1954 book, "The Christian View of Science and
Scripture," the late Bernard Ramm (in the long chapter on geology)
classified the day-age view as "concordism" and the pictorial day view
(similar to the framework view) as "moderate concordism." Ramm himself
preferred moderate concordism. He defined it as follows: "geology and
Genesis tell in broad outline the same story." It differs from "strict
concordism" by not insisting that "YOM" means a period of time; and by
insisting that the days are "not completely chronological in order but part
topical or logical." You see why I think of this as the framework
view--though that view hadn't really been formally introduced as such to
readers in English, it was still in Dutch at that time I think.

In my own historical analysis, unlike Ramm I place the gap theory in the
concordist camp; and I do not place the framework view there--however, many
framework advocates *do* see it as a kind of moderate concordism, while many
others do not. Definitions, as Jon senses, lie at the heart of this. I
won't go to the wall for my implicit definition, or anyone else's.

In the 19th century, Silliman (strict day-age), Hitchcock (gap), and Dana
(broad progressive creation, with lots of evolution but not for humans) can
all be seen as concordists, and I have them down as such in my writings.
Gray, on the other hand, did not have much sympathy for the anxious feeling
which demands such harmonies, as he put it (I either entirely or almost
entirely quote him here). He was not a concordist, but a classic TE whose
views (as I have often pointed out) are nearly the same as those of Mike
Behe today.

Ted

 
Received on Sat Jun 3 11:36:47 2006