Truth Magazine

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

The editor has been considerate in providing me an advance copy of brother Adams’ article which mentions Florida College and one of our teachers, Shane Scott.

Brother Adams quotes William D. Burgess, former   biology professor at Florida College, who took the position that the “days” of creation were “days of ordinary length.” All of our present science faculty would concur with brother Burgess’ conclusion.

Brother Adams also refers to Hill Roberts. To my knowledge, no one at Florida College holds the position brother Roberts does on the age of the earth. Brother Roberts was invited to conduct a series of special classes during our 1999 lecture series on the use of technology in teaching the truth on the subject of evolution and related topics to a skeptical world. Having learned of his position on the age of the earth shortly before lectures, we talked with him and agreed that because the age of the earth was not part of his topic we would go forward with providing the benefit of his special knowledge and skill in the assigned area to those who wished to take advantage of it. We did not feel that his presence would injure anyone’s faith or promote his position.

Brother Adams mentions our publication of materials combating evolution. I would encourage every reader to examine for himself what we have said. I will be glad to supply a copy of the articles to anyone who asks. They may quickly be found on the Internet at http://www.flcoll.edu/pdfs/colly.pdf and http://www.flcoll.edu/pdfs/dnorth.pdf.  Books containing our lecture manuscripts and tapes of both the oral lectures and the special classes are available through our bookstore. I would especially encourage interested readers to get copies of the lecture tapes of Ferrell Jenkins (Florida College Bible Chairman) and Steve Wolfgang (Truth Magazine board member and staff writer) to see how our brethren have handled these issues in the past. A transcript of brother Jenkins’ class lecture on this topic is available on the web at http://bibleworld.com. Brother Wolfgang recently completed a doctoral dissertation entitled “Science and Religion Issues Among 20th Century Restorationist Religious Groups.” A brief summary of this material which contains footnote references to some of the quotations referred to in brother Wolfgang’s classes may be found in A Tribute to Melvin D. Curry, Jr. (published by Florida College, 1997, 222-40) which is also available from the Florida College Bookstore or from Truth Bookstore.

The focus of brother Adams’ article is Shane Scott. It is true that brother Scott wrote an article in 1995 presenting the view that the word “day” (yom) in Genesis 1 is used in a figurative sense. The article was written at the request of Ken Chumbley who was editing a small section on “Evidences” in Floyd Chappelear’s paper, Sentry. The plan, as stated by brother Chumbley to brother Scott, was to provide a series of point/counterpoint discussions as a tool to bring both sides of certain issues before brethren. Brother Scott suggested that brother Chumbley invite Greg Gwin to respond. Brother Scott would not have written his article independently where there was no response. Such is an indicator of his long-time thinking about teaching on this topic.

While it is understandable that without some of this background one would see brother Scott as dogmatic about this topic, he is not. Although he does wrestle with correlating Genesis 1 and some statements in Genesis 2 with the literal day position, he has never questioned instantaneous creation by God of all that God created. He believes that God also created the processes of nature and that some things may have been created first in immature forms which grew to maturity. (He would cite the growth of vegetation referred to specifically in Genesis 2.) He does not argue from science. His conclusion in the article was based on the implications of textual statements in which the Holy Spirit reveals what took place in the midst of and following the creative acts of God. The question with him has never been what God created or what God could have done. God is omniscient and omnipotent. He was not trying to fit what scientists think with Scripture. He is seeking to understand the meaning of what God says in Genesis 2 in light of what he said in Genesis 1. All of God’s Word is sacred, infallible, and true in brother Scott’s mind.

Furthermore, he does not advocate a figurative interpretation in his classes at Florida College. As all our Bible teachers have done for many years in studying Genesis 1, he feels that the responsibility in the college classroom is to inform students of the several positions identifying strengths and weaknesses of each position. Because of that, the bibliography in his course syllabus contains references to the writings of men on all sides of these issues; as would the bibliographies in other college courses on other subjects. This particular discussion is done as a part of only one lecture on one day in one course. It is preceded by an entire lecture in which brother Scott unquestionably sets forth the case against theistic evolution. Not only is he not dogmatic about setting an age for the earth, his position has changed from 1995 as he has studied and meditated on implications of various aspects of the issues involved. Because he admits to being unsure about parts of this study, he does not present a conclusion in class and does not discuss it publicly (other than in the one article mentioned and in a context of explaining the various views and allowing students to decide for themselves). For these reasons he has refused to engage in public debates on this topic.

While I do not concur with all his reasoning and/or personal conclusions, this teacher has a humble spirit, a tender heart, and a sincere desire to know and teach only the truth of God. Shane has great potential for good in the kingdom of God. He has a commitment to the Word that cherishes both the content and spirit of Truth. He has not, to my knowledge, taught error in the classroom of Florida College. He has, from the first discussion with me, indicated a willingness to study this subject and a desire to seek the truth on every biblical teaching wherever that leads. I think that is the kind of teacher our brethren want for their children.

Brother Adams, too, is seeking to teach and defend the Truth. He has had my admiration over the years for his exegesis of the Bible text. I do not hesitate to say that we recognize the awesome responsibility we have in teaching young Christians. I have always gladly accepted constructive criticisms which will help us do our job in a way that will please God. In this case, brother Adams freely admits that he does not even know Shane Scott, and yet he has determined that employing him is inexcusable. I do know Shane Scott. I know what he teaches here. I could be wrong, of course, but I think I know the kind of person he is.

On a more general note, I and my colleagues here at Florida College have dedicated our lives to encouraging young men and women to serve the Lord in whatever capacity they are able. Sometimes they, like us, reach wrong conclusions. Sometimes they say things that are not right. Sometimes they say things in an inexperienced way that evidences they have not yet done all the study they will do on that topic or that they are naive about the implications of a position they are taking. That does not excuse the teaching of error at any time or age. It does not excuse any damage that might be done. I am, however, deeply thankful to the gracious God of heaven that my dad, Jim Cope, Clinton Hamilton, and others helped me through my youth.

We all struggle with how best to serve the kingdom of God in these kinds of matters and do what is right. I have chosen in most cases to first try to help a brother see his way. If I do not know him, I have looked to the people I know who do know him; and unless he continues to press his position in an unbefitting way, I have trusted them to work with him. I have reflected (almost as much as on how many souls will be lost through what one says with which I disagree) on how many souls may be lost because of my impatience and persistence in discrediting a brother who is sincere and honest, who is leading many to greater knowledge and service, and who is studying diligently to know and teach the Truth. While I must not excuse the teaching of error or compromise the Truth, it seems to me to be an exercise in Truth “to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1-3).

119 Glen Arven Ave., Temple Terrace, Florida 33617  E-mail: caldwelc@flcoll.edu

By Shane Scott

In the July 6 issue of Truth Magazine, Connie Adams charged that I am a threat to the students of Florida College. I want to respond to his allegations.

It is true that I wrote an article in Sentry Magazine in which I argued that the best biblical interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 was that they were ages. However, brother Adams failed to mention the following pertinent facts about the article:

    1. It was written over five years ago.
2. It was written at the request of Ken Chumbley, who was editing a  small section on evidences.
3. It was written as part of a point-counterpoint exchange in which I was asked to give my opinion.
4. A counterpoint article was written and printed on the page beside my article.
5. The counterpoint article was written by Greg Gwin, whom I suggested brother Chumbley should contact.

It is also true that in my article I said the “days cannot be literal” and that they “must be ages.” What I meant by this is that these conclusions are the logical consequence of the factors I raised in the article. Those statements should not be interpreted to mean that I think I have all the answers about this topic, or that I think my position is flawless, or that I believe anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic. Indeed, at the end of my article I allowed that the literal day view may be correct, though in my opinion it is not the best interpretation.

I am very sensitive to the responsibility I have in a setting such as the classroom to present various interpretations and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each. That is how I deal with Genesis 1 in the single lecture I deliver at Florida College on this topic (out of approximately 265 total lectures I present).

I would not have written the article in Sentry unless I knew a “counterpoint” article would have been presented as well. Though I expressed strong personal beliefs in the article, I am always open to other ways of looking at this matter. I have never “bombarded” others with my views, whether in the classroom, pulpit, or personal conversation.

My article in Sentry was based on the time-honored principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture. Further, as Truth staff writer and Board of Directors member Steve Wolfgang has recently noted in his doctoral dissertation on creationism in churches of Christ, the viewpoint I expressed has been held by very conservative brethren throughout the history of the restoration.

I have no quarrel with anyone who questions what I teach. On more than one occasion I have shown inquirers my lecture notes and exams in which this topic is addressed. I was glad to do so and would have been happy to offer such to brother Adams, if he had asked. Though he knows who I am and where I work, he has never contacted me about this matter.

I have been blessed to teach at Florida College the past two years, and to speak in a good number of churches in the last several years. These opportunities have afforded me the chance to build a track record of responsible preaching and teaching, a record which stands in sharp relief to brother Adams’ assertions, and one I am happy to stand behind. (I would encourage the reader to read both my article and Greg Gwin’s at my website: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/sscott02/genesis_1_introduction.htm

By Bill H. Reeves

We are being told that people have different sexual orientations, that so-and-so is homosexual because that is his sexual orientation. I ask myself: What is this “orientation” bit? What are we being told here?

I know that many people, and I dare say that most people, can’t even define the word “orientation”! If you think me wrong on this, please ask the first ten people you come to: What does the word “orientation” mean? See how many can give you a real, radical (root meaning) definition of the word itself. Many know how the word is used in today’s conversations (they hear the word and immediately think exclusively of homosexuality), but how many know that the radical meaning of the word has nothing to do with preference as to sexuality.

In the word “orientation,” we see the word “orient” meaning “east.” So, the east, where the sun rises, becomes a point of reference as respects physical directions. So, if a person has lost his directions, we say that he has become “disoriented.”  (In Spanish, if a person is disoriented, he is said to be “norteada” — headed north, instead of east.)

So, we see that orientation has to do simply with a position, heading, or direction that one takes in reference to something. One’s orientation is one’s position relative to a particular issue. A homosexual is one who takes the position that he can have sex with another of the same (Greek, homo) sex. Anything new about that? Of course not! But the issue has been stirred in favor of accepting homosexuality by means of rhetoric (the skill in effective use of speech). The issue is presented by the liberal as if it were all a matter  of one’s personal position or preference. Now, no one has the right to press his position on everyone else. So, if one person has a heterosexual position or preference, fine. And if another has a different sexual orientation, fine. Who is one person that he should tell all others what their sexual orientation ought to be?

The fallacy of all of this sophistry lies in the fact that God is left out of the equation! God has already determined man’s sexuality. He has set the orientation (direction, position). The issue is not left up to man for choice of orientation. God has oriented, or directed, all of his creatures made in his image in the matter of sexuality, the so-called “New Morality” of the 1960s, and subsequent perversions, to the contrary! He has ordained marriage for a man and a woman. That is the orientation! Man with man, man with beast, woman with woman, or woman with beast, are orientations (positions, directions) which rebellious people are taking in defiance of God’s orientation.

Don’t be deceived by rhetoric (in this case, euphemistic words and phrases) designed to deceive (Rom. 16:18). A well-known news analyst lately asked a politician, who had used a statement perceived (by some) as being very derogatory of our President, “Don’t you believe that words are important?” Yes, Mr. Analyst, words are very important to the liberals who are trying, by means of their rhetoric (sound more than substance), to manipulate the minds of those who don’t think for themselves!
Brethren and friends, rather than be lead by rhetoric, let us learn to analyze words and phrases, and challenge the use being made of them, lest we be lead astray (deceived) by smooth and fair speech. “Sexual orientation” — how is that phrase being used? That is what we need to be asking, rather than falling into the trap of thinking that, well, no one has the right to tell everyone else what their preference of direction or position ought to be. 
    
Yes, there is such a thing as sexual orientation, and God has already determined what it is. Anyone who chooses to change that orientation is in defiance of God! I am not trying to get anyone to accept my sexual orientation; I’m trying to get all people to accept God’s! Those clamoring for freedom to choose their own sexual orientation are God-denying, God-hating, individuals.  There is no choice but to accept or reject God’s sexual orientation as set forth in the Book! 

One might as well talk about having “a different economical orientation,” choosing to rob banks to get money, instead of working with his hands (Eph. 4:28), as to talk about having “a different sexual orientation.”  How about one’s having “a different reality orientation,” choosing rather to lie than to tell the truth? or, “a different bio-orientation,” choosing rather to kill life (as in abortion), than sustain it (bring to birth)?

680 Winchester Dr., Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240 blaitch@prodigy.net

By Larry Ray Hafley

Sharon Stone is one of America’s leading actresses. Here is what her “father said to her when she asked him what he thought about her appearing in Playboy, as quoted by the actress’ mother, Dorothy, in Talk magazine.”

“If I told you not to do it, I’d be pretty hypocritical because I’ve been getting Playboy for years, and those girls are somebody’s daughters. If you feel comfortable doing it, then go for it” (Houston Chronicle, 5/4/00, 2D). 

Frankly, folks, a man with such an outlook on decency, morality, and pornography ought to resign his position as fatherly advisor. The mere fact that Stone would even ask her father such a question speaks a gigabyte. How many young ladies, being raised by godly parents, can imagine asking their father what he would think about their appearing in Playboy?

Suppose a man frequented prostitutes and his daughter asked him what he thought about her becoming one. Should the man say, “If I told you not to do it, I’d be pretty hypocritical because I’ve been committing fornication with them for years, and those girls are somebody’s daughters. If you feel comfortable doing it, then go for it.” Wonder if Mr. Stone would so advise his daughter, if that were the case?  

Sadly, I fear that Mr. Stone is raising up more daughters than are we. His spirit is the majority. Hence, we have more sultry Sharons than virgin Marys. 

What a shame, and what a peril for our country (Prov. 14:34; 16:12). 

Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 15  p4  August 3, 2000