Re: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

Good question, Merv, and I think you've received some good responses
already. We don't have good data on demographics within the ASA. It would
be very interesting to know. I do get the impression from personal
interactions that there's a pretty broad spectrum of beliefs and on this
list we simply don't hear as much from the more conservative end. I wish we
could sustain a broader balance and portray the respect for each other that
we proclaim.

As Dave pointed out, everyone is concordistic to some extent and
accommodationistic to some extent. The issue is which passages we're
discussing. Usually we share the foundation of the reality of Jesus' life,
death and resurrection and then vigorously debate Gen. 1-11 and related
passages. You brought up Jonah, Job, and NT parables. But I wonder how you
and people on this list consider Gen. 12 through the Kings and Chronicles?
To what extent are you concordistic with respect to these portions of the
Old Testament? To what extent is it important? I've never researched the
archeology and recorded history of that period to know the extent of concord
that exists. If hypothetically such concord were to be shown not to exist,
would that also be of little or no impact to your faith? You used the
intriguing phrase "...the necessary historicity in later Genesis...."

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

>
> My early impression of this [ASA] list was that most of you are TEs, and
> that
> with that you are probably accommodationists of varying degree. Yet since
> I've
> been lurking over the last months, the most active threads have always
> involved
> concordism of varying flavors. (i.e. debates over Adam as Neolithic, or
> ancient, etc. -but always as a historical person) so much so to make me
> think
> my impression was mistaken.
>
> Are most of you actually concordists who just differ over the details? Am
> I
> alone in my thoughts that my faith would not be much affected if, for
> example,
> Jonah, Job, NT parables, (or even early Genesis) was not completely
> historical -
> in fact, some of it maybe not historical at all -- but yet is truth
> without
> having to be so in the modern/historical sense?
>
> Granted the difficulties much expressed about messy transition between
> early
> Genesis mythology (NOT to be taken as a demeaning term here) and the
> necessary
> historicity in later Genesis, that problem seems no less messy than
> awkwardly
> forced concordisms.
>
> Or is my original impression correct, and you just find yourselves engaged
> with
> a vocal group of well-researched and persistent concordists (who do
> indeed
> bring a great wealth of knowledge and perspective to the debate - don't
> get me
> wrong.)
>
> As always, I'm sure my inquiry is the umpteenth of its nature on this list
> history, and any patience you all choose to extend is always appreciated.
> You
> have every right to start saying: To your inquiry (#23) we respond with
> devastating reply #219 and for penance read "you idiot" #64. Or you can
> just
> refer to earlier posts. But I do mostly appreciate the exchange here
> from all
> sides be they concordist or accomodationist -- or at least the ones I've
> taken
> time to read out of the volumes written.
>
> --merv
>
> Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. --Steven
> Wright
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 30 21:52:31 2006