Re: [asa] ASA Newsletter

George

Part of the problem with statements worked out long ago is that too many
evangelicals simply stay with the bible and ignore the 2000 years so miss
the many wise words from our forbears.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
To: "David Clounch" <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] ASA Newsletter

> David -
>
> An ASA FAQ, blog &c would be great. I don't see though why either would
> require the present discussion list to be dropped, unless - again - it
> would be problem of resources to maintain both.
>
> I agree that it is best, when possible, to point people to answers that
> were worked out long ago. That's why, e.g., the ASA statement of faith
> refers to the ecumenical creeds. But all questions can't be answered in
> this way. Just as the church eventually had to deal with issues that
> weren't addressed in those creeds (e.g., the relation bewteen humanity &
> divinity in Christ, original sin, justification, ordering of ministry, the
> Lord's Supper), developments in science and technology in recent times
> confront us with questions whose answers _haven't_ been worked out before.
> That doesn't mean that scripture & the history of theological reflection
> on it have nothing to offer in dealing with those matters, but neither
> scripture nor tradition give us ready made answers.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> ---- David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> George,
>>
>> I think if a question and it's answer are important enough then one
>> doesn't leave it to exist only in an email chat room.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree, drive by questions from atheists dinging the historicity
>> and
>> truthfulness of Christianity are indeed the nature of the medium. But
>> isn't
>> that why
>> it is better to point the questioner to the answers that were worked out
>> long ago?
>>
>> It depends upon who one wants answering. If the answer is something the
>> ASA
>> or asa list members should be dishing out then isn't it obvious that
>> those
>> groups should develop the answers? That is why I thought raising an FAQ
>> community process here might be valuable. Wouldn't that be better than
>> leaving it to totally random opinion slinging? Or random chance?
>>
>>
>> Now, " why it is better to point the questioner to the answers that were
>> worked out long ago" ????? Because then the answer is from consensus,
>> it
>> is higher quality, and it is convenient in that you just point to it
>> instead
>> of regurgitating external material (material that may not be easily
>> available to the questioner).
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave C
>>
>> PS, Gee, I think I've just described the concept of a wiki.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:17 AM, <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > David -
>> >
>> > 1st I should be clear that though I am a long time ASA member (32 years
>> > I
>> > think) & also have been a participant on the list since the late 90s,
>> > I'm
>> > not in a position to make official statements about the purpose or
>> > policies
>> > of either. Randy or Ted would be better people to talk to about those
>> > matters.
>> >
>> > & I am not trying to blame you for how the list functions, or for
>> > anything
>> > else. I was simply pointing out that it is for purposes of discussion
>> > &
>> > open to anyone who will follow reasonable guidelines of relevance &
>> > civility, so that the problems you see are pretty much in the nature of
>> > the
>> > medium. In the present case the question of the relevance of ASA to
>> > the
>> > work of apologetics came up & I made what seemed to me the fairly
>> > obvious
>> > point that since issues related to science & religion are a concern for
>> > some
>> > people, ASA ought to be able to be a resource for the church. (I
>> > should add
>> > that that's to the extent that apologetics is a legitimate enterprise -
>> > I'm
>> > enough of a Barthian to make some qualifications there.)
>> >
>> > Your criticisms seem to have more to do with the ASA itself rather that
>> > just this list. I will agree that the organization has its
>> > limitations.
>> > One is just that it doesn't have a lot of money. Another is that it
>> > doesn't take an official stance on some of the debated issues like the
>> > relationship between evolution & creation. Those things alone mean
>> > that it
>> > can't be devoted to apologetic work in the way that, e.g., Reasons to
>> > Believe is. (OTOH it isn't hampered with some of RTBs dogmatic
>> > commitments,
>> > like rejection of human evolution.)
>> >
>> > & the purpose of ASA isn't, like that of RTB, active apologetics or
>> > evangelism. I see it rather as being a resource for the church,
>> > including
>> > its work in those areas. That's stated in PSCF as one of the purposes
>> > of
>> > the journal - to be "one of the means by which the results of such
>> > exploration [in faith & science] are made known for the benefit and
>> > criticism of the Christian community and of the scientific community."
>> >
>> > It seems to me that you're being a bit dismissive of "Writing articles
>> > for
>> > PSCF" and "Going to conferences". I agree that too much activity in
>> > both is
>> > still devoted to things like the Noachic flood. But both the journal &
>> > conferences do serve to get ideas about the proper relationship of
>> > faith &
>> > science to membership & to some extent to the larger Christian
>> > community.
>> > I, for one, make no apology about writing for the journal (including
>> > an
>> > article related to the question of salvation last year) & giving papers
>> > at
>> > conferences. But I can't force people to read or listen to or apply
>> > them.
>> >
>> > I also think it's unfortunate that David Opderbeck left the list & am
>> > sorry
>> > to hear (if it's true- I don't follow all threads & didn't know about
>> > this)
>> > that Ian has. But I think it's wrong to suggest either that
>> > discussions
>> > here accomplish nothing or that there's no legitimate disagreement
>> > permitted
>> > here. Speaking again for myself, I've appreciated the contributions of
>> > many
>> > (including David & Ian) with whom I sometimes disagree, & in turn have
>> > been
>> > told by others that my arguments have been helpful, while criticisms of
>> > my
>> > views have never tempted me to bail out. (Sometimes, however,
>> > discussions
>> > start to take up so much time that I just have to get out for a bit to
>> > catch
>> > my breath & attend to other things - & I suspect that's the case for
>> > others
>> > too.)
>> >
>> > Shalom,
>> > George
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---- David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM, <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > David -
>> > > >
>> > > > The asa list is just a venue for discussion of science-religion
>> > > > issues
>> > &
>> > > > questions.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > It isn't the totality of the ASA. That doesn't rule out
>> > > > discussions
>> > here
>> > > > of what ASA policy should be or what initiatives it might
>> > > > undertake,
>> > but no
>> > > > such discussions in themselves will change policy or bring about
>> > action.
>> > > > There are other ways to do those things.
>> > > >
>> > > > The organization sends me a newsletter and gives me this place as
>> > > > the
>> > place
>> > > to discuss anything.
>> > > So if you don't think this works very well, well gee George, I
>> > > certainly
>> > > agree with you on that.
>> > > But you sound sort of as if you blame me for that. I didnt choose
>> > > either
>> > of
>> > > these solutions.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > I don't think the question of how people "get saved" is irrelevant
>> > > > to
>> > ASA
>> > > > policy or practice.
>> > >
>> > > Its not irrelevant. But a coherent view of salvation also cannot
>> > > be
>> > > resolved in a chat room comprised of non-ASA members for exactly
>> > > the
>> > same
>> > > reason as you are saying no decisions about how the ASA develops
>> > resources
>> > > can get made here. When it comes to the arm chair philosophy and
>> > > opinion-slinging that probably won't even develop into any sort of
>> > > coherent consensus - well, that part is most certainly irrelevant.
>> > > And
>> > the
>> > > reason is similar - no product is produced. No resources are
>> > > produced.
>> > >
>> > > But if you are concerned about the matter being all that critical
>> > > then
>> > why
>> > > not simply point folks to the ASA website where the answers on "how
>> > people
>> > > get saved" is on display (after having been worked out) ??
>> > > Perhaps
>> > > because oops - there is no such material? Which is sort of my
>> > original
>> > > point. If the same answer is given ten years from now "oops - there
>> > > is
>> > no
>> > > such material" it will be only because it was decided that it isn't
>> > worth
>> > > developing that material. Instead an infinite chat session on the
>> > > topic
>> > > will be the total output of the ASA. I suppose I was challenging
>> > > you
>> > and
>> > > Ted and Randy and others to change that. What ever was I thinking?
>> > Just
>> > > slap me, I'll come out of my dream state momentarily.
>> > >
>> > > Since you alluded to the rest of the ASA, What I see ASA members
>> > > doing
>> > is:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 1) Writing articles for PSCF
>> > > 2) Going to conferences
>> > > 3) Chatting on this majordomo.
>> > >
>> > > Thats all I have seen so far. It seems to me the typical person who
>> > comes
>> > > in contact with the ASA eventually sees about this much. So where is
>> > > the
>> > > 90% of the iceberg that provides the great resource to Christianity?
>> > What
>> > > am I missing?
>> > >
>> > > Two recent events bother me.
>> > > 1) David Opderbeck withdrew.
>> > > 2) Ian Strachan apparently withdrew, apparently because of
>> > > Bernie/atheist
>> > > related nonsense?
>> > > I miss both these distinguished gentlemen, and the value of this list
>> > > to
>> > me
>> > > is greatly reduced. Apparently a lot of good people over the years
>> > > have
>> > > withdrawn. Is this because they didnt see anything more? Or is it
>> > because
>> > > the organization never actually finds any common ground between the
>> > various
>> > > persuasions within Christianity?
>> > > And never allows Christians to legitimately disagree? Identifying
>> > > where
>> > > Christians may legitimately disagree is just as critical as finding
>> > > areas
>> > of
>> > > agreement. I've seen very little emphasis on any of that.
>> >
>> >
>
>
> 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 Tue Sep 8 16:55:54 2009