Thanks for the responses. Perhaps one way to describe the differences in
what we emphasize is that I seem more concerned about dangers from the side
of dogmatic conservatism, while you are more concerned about dangers from
the side of unrestrained relativism. Both are, I believe, legitimate
> As I said earlier, the parallel between science and theology isn't exact.
True, but I probably judge the parallels to be closer than you do.
My original statement was:
> Once we recognize these "fundamental doctrines of the faith" as "human best
> efforts" offered by historical communities of faith at varying times and in
> varying cultural, political and sociological circumstances, they can then be
> appreciated, valued, examined, adopted, modified, rejected, or replaced, but
> idolized as the final word or used as a club to beat other good persons away
> the community of those who declare themselves followers of Christ
> There is some loaded language here. I am not interested in "beating away"
> "good people" but in trying to maintain the faithfulness of the church's
> proclamation and teaching.
I know that well. That "loaded language" there was my reaction to some of
the other recent message traffic in which strident charges of "un-Christian"
were filling the air.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 27 2002 - 08:32:04 EST