Re: [asa] Our discourse here

Steve Matheson wrote:
--------------------
[SNIP]
Most importantly, though, I'm just trying to keep us focused on the fact
that some of the bad ideas around here are potentially damaging. They are errors
that can harm the gospel and the church, specifically by endangering the
faith of those who are victimized by (for example) the reckless abuses of RTB. My
 point is that concern about proper conduct in the absence of concern about
such practices is unbalanced and unbiblical. One might disagree by denying
that such conduct is damaging, or even by affirming the assumptions of RTB and
its followers. But those who see such errors as dangerous should be much more
circumspect, in my view, when posting links to sermons on civil conduct and
adding hearty "amens" to those who do.
----------
 
 
For what it's worth, as the one who started this particular thread, I agree
with much of what Steve M. has said in reply.
 
I agree that intemperate discourse is by no means the only thing on this
list damaging to the body of Christ. If, for example, somebody implies that
those who see God doing his creative work through natural processes are failing
to "choose God", it is right to speak against that. Anybody who has been on
this list for a while knows that I am not shy about opposing some things,
like God-of-the-gaps theology, slavish concordism that twists Scripture and/or
science (and yes, I would place some of RTB's positions in that category), and
approaches to Scripture that verge on bibliolatry.
 
But yet, in this communication among the body of Christ, we must speak the
truth in love. We can oppose pernicious ideas without personal attacks on
people. We can be firm without being vicious. We can treat others with grace
and humility rather than contempt. We can be constructive in our comments
rather than snarky. We can be wary of possible logs in our own eyes. I think
David O. got that balance right in his message earlier this evening. And his
thoughts about the murky purpose of this list are also apropos.
 
My purpose in providing that link was not to stifle discourse but to try to
make our discourse more edifying. Edifying discourse does not mean ignoring
bad doctrine or bad science when it hits our inboxes in some sort of "let's
all just get along" mode. But I think it does mean, as with all our
interactions, striving to be people of grace even as we advocate what we believe to be
right and oppose what we believe to be wrong and harmful.
 
Allan (ASA member)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"
**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 22 22:35:13 2009