Science
in Christian PerspectiveScience
in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
An Open Letter of Protest
Duane T. Gish
Assistant Director, Research Creation-Science Research Center
San
Diego, California 92116
From: JASA 24 (June 1972:
77-81.
Editor's Reply
Statements made in recent issues
must not he allowed to pass without challenge. If
these statements represent the views of the membership of the Affiliation, then
it has lost its
raison d'etre and certainly can no longer claim a Biblical foundation.
In Journal ASA 23, 118 (1971) you review The Returns of Love: Letters
of a Christian Homosexual. After quoting the author's statement that "homosexual acts are
wrong, with an intrinsic, unqualified wrongness," you state later in your
review that "There is
perhaps a thesis which can be advanced contrary to the approach of the author,
which, it seems, cannot be refuted except on rather specific
empirical grounds."
You then proceed to develop your thesis, which you claim is based on
Romans 13:8-10
(verse 10 of which reads: "Love cannot wrong a neighbor:
therefore the whole
law is summed up in love" (New English Bible) ). Your thesis can
be summarized
in the following statements taken from your discussion:
we may then define a Biblically approved sexual relationship between two persons as a relationship based on a loving lifelong commitment of one to the other.
Inasmuch as the Biblical condemnation of fornication does not imply a condemnation of sex within a loving lifelong commitment, the question remains as to whether the Biblical condemnation of homosexual abuses implies a condemnation of homosexual practics within a loving lifelong commitment.
It is difficult, however, to find Biblical support for the condemnation per se of a loving lifelong homosexual relationship involving sex-if indeed i: is possible for such a relationship to exist. And this it an empirical question.
This is clearly an application of situation ethics to the question of whether
an act, in this ease a homosexual act, can be judged to be sin. As noted above,
however, there was no question in the mind of the author that a homosexual act
under any circumstances was sin. The Bible is absolutely clear on that point,
and there can be no application of empiricism in an attempt to
justify any other
conclusion. Leviticus 18:22 states, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as
with womankind: it is abomination" (KJV). In I Corinthians
6:9,10, we read,
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor homosexuals,
nor thieves, nor greedy,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God"
(RSV).
How could Scripture be any clearer on a point than that? The
homosexual relationship
is condemned by God under any circumstances, and such a "loving lifelong
relationship" would only assure that such defiance of God was a lifelong
defiance. Your suggestion was a license to sin. You strip God of
every attribute
except love. A proper response to this homosexual would be to assure him that
not only was he clear concerning what the Scripture taught regastling
homosexual
acts, but that through complete surrender of himself to Christ he
could he cleansed
even of the tendency.
In Journal ASA 23, 156 (1971) you review two books: Biblical
Cosmology and Modern
Science by Henry M. Morris, and Modern Science and Christian Life, by Stanley
D. Beck. Your review of Dr. Morris' hook is an example of what has
become so typical
in the Journal of reviews of publications by creationistsa polemic with little
discussion of factual material found in the book. You accuse him of
"pouring
old wine into old wineskins," of offering "an almost
unbelievable manual
of pseudo-science esoterica," and of "Flatly rejecting the
modem stance
of several of the major sciences--all before the reader is apprised concerning
any of the hook's contents. You quote Dr. Morris' statement that "Thus the
Biblical cosmologist finally must recognize that the geological ages can have
had no true objective existence at all, if the Bible is true,"
without supplying
the reader any idea at all concerning why Dr. Morris had reached this
conclusion.
\Vhile attempting to make Dr. Morris appear blatantly
anti-scientific, you correctly
accuse him of rejecting the modern stance of several of the modern
sciences. Dr.
Morris does not reject modern science, but the modern stance of many
scientists.
The modern stance of scientists not only require rejection of the
Biblical record
of creation, the fall of man, and the Flood, but also rejection of the virgin
birth of Christ, His blood atonement, and His resurrection, in fact,
of the very
existence of God Himself. Dr. Morris refuses to emasculate the Scriptures, as
Beck does, in order to accept what is fashionable in science.
Concerning the views of Beck revealed in his book, you state that
Beck seems to drift at times into statements not obviously reconcilable with evangelical or Biblical Christian faith, . . He tends at times to speak as though man's sin were only 'tile pull of his biological heritage.' And he indicates he would probably hold a mythological view of such concepts of resurrection, ascension, and the second coming as well as feel that atonement and redemption are 'abstract theological concepts'.
These views not only are "not obviously reconcilable with evangelical or
Biblical Christian faith," but they clearly reject all of the
cardinal Christian
truths. They are anti-Christian. Yet in spite of this you state, "his book
is still to be recommended over that of Morris' for the average reader as far
as the stated subject is concerned." And that stated subject is
the relationship
of modern science to Christian faith.
If I have any command at all of the English language, it seems clear to me that
you are implying that you would rather see men go to hell with what
you consider
good science than go to heaven with what Morris considers good
science. You accuse
Morris of running the risk of leading astray those who look to him as the voice
of modern science, but you dare not accuse him of
pseudo-Christianity, so clearly
embraced by Beck. Setting aside the question of what constitutes good science,
let us recall the words of Christ when He said, "And if thine eye offend
thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into
life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire"
(Matt. 18:9).
In an earlier part of your review you quote Dr. Morris as stating that "If
these first eleven chapters are not historical, then our entire
Biblical foundation
has been removed." The views you have expressed concerning homosexualism,
the views expressed by Beck, and your preference for those views over
the position
of Morris, eloquently testify to the truth of that statement. Both Dr. Beck and
yourself reject the historical content of Genesis 1-11, and one must strip away
the entire Biblical foundation to accept either your point of view or those of
Beck. If these represent the "modern stance of several of the
modern sciences,"
then let the membership of the American Scientific Affiliation reject
this stance
and stand on the Biblical foundation
of the Christian faith. That the Affiliation should take any other
position seems
unthinkable as long as it pretends to he Christian.
(Editor's Reply: In his fervor to correct publicly what he considers
to be heresy
in the Journal ASA, Dr. Cish falls into a number of serious errors.
It is important
both that these errors he pointed out, and that the readers of the Journal ASA
he assured that the Journal ASA and its editors stand squarely on the authority
and reliability of the Scriptures as the Word of God, and on the redeeming work
of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. We do not claim, however, to be
either faultless
or infallible. We expect those who differ with us to make use of the
open Communications
section of this journal, but we are saddened when such complaints and
criticisms
take the form of personal attacks.
The first error made by Dr. Gish is to identify the opinions of a
Journal writer,
whether editor or any other, with the position of the majority of the
membership
of the ASA. We have frequently pointed out that the ASA does not take positions
on controversial issues, and the inside cover of the Journal always carries the
statement that articles published in the Journal should not and cannot he taken
to represent the position of the ASA. The reason for this policy is
that the ASA
exists as an open forum to discuss the interface of science and Christian faith
within the context of a commitment to Biblical Christianity arid to authentic
science. In other organizations it may well be that the word of the publication
must conform in every respect to the official pronouncements of the hierarchy,
and that therefore the word of the publication can be taken to
represent the official
position of the organization. This is not true of the Journal ASA,
never has been
true, and as far as I am able to affect it, will not be true in the future. It
is therefore always inappropriate to east any aspersions on the
Christian orthodoxy
of members of the ASA because of a particular publication in the
Journal. Disagreements
are always welcome and appropriate, but such disagreements should be on matters
of fact, not on matters of motive.
The second error made by Dr. Gish is to assume that any suggestion
that a perspective
contrary to traditional Christian opinion be considered must be
apostate and intended
to deceive. With reference to the book review of The Returns of Love: Letters
of a Christian Homosexual, Dr. Cish correctly quotes my words,
"There is perhaps a thesis which can be advanced contrary to the approach
of the author, which, it seems, cannot he refuted except on rather
specific empirical
grounds." (Italics here are added by me now.) Any reader of that
review will
agree, I believe, that the advancing of this thesis is couched in as
many "hedge"
words as it is possible to use, and that having advanced the thesis I return to
the theme of deliverance from homosexuality as the highest good. Dr.
Cish assumes
that I am advocating homosexual acts; such a conclusion cannot be reached from
the review, which simply proposes an alternate perspective known to be held by
a variety of Christian homosexuals and missionaries to Christian homosexuals.
I am certainly not dealing in situation ethics. The ethic is clear:
any relationship
not founded upon a lifelong commitment of love cannot be accepted
under any circumstances.
There are no situations where a relationship falling short of a
lifelong commitment
of love can be condoned. The question remains: are there situations in which a
lifelong commitment of love can exist, which are different from
traditional views?
I suggest that this is a fitting subject for Christians to consider
from the perspective
of Biblical and scientific insight.
The third error made by Dr. Gish is the argument that bad science by
an orthodox
Christian presents a more accurate picture of the relationship between science
and Christian faith than questionable theology by a Christian
scientist. Dr. Cish's
interpretation of the implication of my position is completely his own; it is
certainly not mine. I would be the first to agree that it is
infinitely more important
for a man to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior and Lord, than
it is for that man to have an accurate knowledge of science. But this was not
the subject under discussion. The fact remains that a better guide to
the interaction
between science and Christian faith may well he given by a man who understands
the structure of science and Christian faith, although his own formulation of
the Christian faith may he defective in part (as gleaned from a few statements
out of an entire honk), than is given by a man who is himself a
thoroughly orthodox
and" committed Christian (albeit with a commitment to a
particular eschatological
perspective), whose views on both science and the relationship between science
and Christian faith are distorted.
The Journal ASA and its editor seek the comments and criticisms of its readers.
We shall continue, however, to maintain that which is also clearly
stated on the
inside front cover of the Journal ASA,
Open discussion of all issues is encouraged in the expectation that the pursuit
of truth can only be enhanced by
exposure to conscientious and honest inquiry.)