Re: [asa] ASA Newsletter

George,

"I don't see though why either would require the present discussion list to
be dropped"

I agree. I never intended to propose its an either-or situation.
Thats why I was suggesting an FAQ - because it is really limited in scope.
I hope I didn't convey the idea I am for shutting down the list.
Listservers serve a very useful function. But they are sometimes
frustrating in terms of organizing information.

Thanks,
Dave C

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> 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 17:38:56 2009