Re: [asa] Our discourse here

Ok fair enough. My apologies to JP and the list for my inappropriate response.

However, when some people come on to the list and take a shot across the bow like that, I for one feel that some response is in order. This is the second time this has happened and no rebuttal has ever been offered.

And as Steve pointed out, I am overly sensitive and a bit defensive about this so I felt compelled to say something. I let my anger get the best of me.

But I do feel the "not choosing God" commment was gratuitous and over the top and is at least as deserving as a sermon as my response to it.

Thanks

John

--- On Sun, 2/22/09, SteamDoc@aol.com <SteamDoc@aol.com> wrote:

> From: SteamDoc@aol.com <SteamDoc@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Our discourse here
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 10:34 PM
> 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 Mon Feb 23 07:41:23 2009