A Letter to Colly Caldwell
Chris Reeves
|
A Letter to Colly Caldwell Chris Reeves
|
Dear Watchman Magazine reader:
On July 22, 2000 my wife and I wrote Brother Caldwell, President of Florida College, about our concerns over the issue of the "days" of Genesis 1-2 and Florida College. Except for a few of my own family, no one but Brother Caldwell has seen this letter until now. We had not heard from Brother Caldwell concerning my letter, so on August 28, 2000 I wrote him a brief e-mail asking him if he had received my letter and if he had any plans to respond to it. On August 29, 2000 Brother Caldwell responded to me by phone about my letter. We spoke for about an hour. Brother Caldwell was very kind and courteous in his response and I thanked him for responding to my letter. However, I am not completely satisfied with Brother Caldwell's response. I do not agree with him in whole as to how he has chosen to resolve this issue. I accepted his apology concerning one point I raised in my letter and thanked him for it. But, there are other points in my letter that have been left unresolved between us. Since our phone conversation was not recorded, if you would like to know how he responded to my letter I would encourage you to contact Brother Caldwell. I'm sure Brother Caldwell would be glad to answer any questions you might have. Or, if you would like to contact me about what Brother Caldwell said I would be glad to relate his response to you as best I can recall it without misrepresenting him. If Brother Caldwell would like to publish his reply to our letter on Watchman Magazine, Stan Cox, editor of Watchman Magazine, will gladly publish it along with our letter.
I am reproducing my letter to Brother Caldwell in full below with the hope that it will help brethren see what the real issue is and how we can work together to resolve it. If you have similar concerns let me encourage you to write Brother Caldwell and express them.
Brotherly,
Chris Reeves
Chris and Cheri Reeves
5223 Hugh Woodard Rd.
Springfield, TN 37172
July 22, 2000
C.G. "Colly" Caldwell
Florida College
119 Glen Arven Ave.
Temple Terrace, FL 33617
Dear Brother:
After careful deliberation and prayerful meditation, I write to you concerning the recent issues over Genesis 1-2 involving Florida College. I realize that this is one of many letters that you have received recently concerning this issue, but please grant me a few minutes of your time. As I speak for myself throughout this letter, I also speak for my wife, Cheri.
I write to you out of true love and devotion; first, for my Lord and the Truth, and also for Florida College. Brother, you know me, my family, my wife's family and our support of Florida College for over 30 years! I will say no more about my genuine concern. My positive relationship with the school through the years speaks for itself. I say this at the beginning because I saw recently where Ralph Walker, officially representing Florida College, wrote, "Some detractors are getting militant!" Brother Caldwell, let me say that I am no "detractor" (someone who takes away), I am someone who wants to see Florida College continue to exist and stand for what is right.
Let me also say at the beginning that my concern over this issue is not new. I have been concerned about Shane Scott's position on Genesis 1-2 ever since I first read his article in Sentry Magazine (March, 1995), where he said "the days cannot be literal" and "the days must be ages." From that time onward I have corresponded with Shane off and on discussing his view of the "days" of Genesis 1-2. This of course, was before Shane was hired to teach at Florida College. The need for me to write you now has not been prompted in any way by Harry Osborne, the recent "Open Letter" to Florida College, my father's signing of the "Open Letter" (I didn't even know my father signed it until after it was published), recent articles in Truth Magazine, numerous e-mails discussing the issue, etc. I was concerned about these issues long before these concerned and genuine responses came along.
I have studied this issue for years and I have discussed this issue personally with Shane Scott long before others brought it to the forefront. As for the matter of Hill Roberts, I have spoken personally with him about his views back in 1996, have studied his materials since that time and have heard him explain his views as late as March, 2000. I asked him to debate these issues at that time and he refused. I have simply been waiting for the right opportunity to discuss it with you and I believe now is the time. I wanted to discuss it with you in the Fall of 1999 when you held your gospel meeting with us, but I did not say anything, allowing more time to go by and giving you the benefit of the doubt to do the right thing. That time has passed. I must address it. Now to my concerns.
First, I believe you have been vague and unclear as to the specific and real issue at hand (i.e. Shane's particular view that the "days" of Genesis 1 are not literal). When you speak and write in an unclear fashion, you are in effect, avoiding or skirting the issue. Yes, you have spoken about some of the issues relating to creation and evolution in general, but you have not specifically addressed what many brethren are concerned with. For example, in your article in the Florida College Magazine (October, 1999) you wrote many good things about how God created the world, and how "macro-evolution," atheistic and theistic evolution are wrong, but you failed to address the real problem with Shane's position. Along with some other faculty members, you allowed Shane to make some statements in your article that were true and good, but again, they did not address the real issue. This article currently resides on the Florida College web page and continues to mislead readers concerning the real issue. Why have you not addressed the real issue, brother? Writing, as you have done, about how God exists, and how God created all things without atheistic evolution or theistic evolution is not enough! I'm pleading with you to be more specific and address the real issue.
A second example of your vague and unclear approach to the real issue is found in your response (dated June 30, 2000) to the "Open Letter" authored by Harry Osborne and Daniel H. King. A portion of your response also resides on the Florida College web page and continues to mislead readers concerning the real issue. Like your article in the Florida College Magazine, I have read your response over and over, and I am bothered by your approach. Again, you are vague and unclear about the real issue. You make seven points, but what have you said? Look it over again, brother. You quote passage after passage and make points we all agree with, but when all is said and done, you have not addressed the real problem. For example, has anyone in this recent controversy ever said that the Bible is not inspired (as per your point #1)? No. Has anyone in this recent controversy ever said that God did not create the heavens and the earth (as per your point #2)? No. So why bring up these non-issues? Please, brother, be more specific!
Here are a few more specific observations about your response. Yes, Shane believes your point #2, but he believes something different about Psalm 33:6,9 than I think you believe about the passage. He believes that God spoke his creation decree, but it took billions of years to be accomplished. Now, is this what you believe Psalm 33:6,9 teaches? If it is, tell me so. You see, just quoting Psalm 33:6,9 doesn't accomplish anything toward resolving this issue. Also in your point #2, you speak of not endorsing any "non-miraculous, naturalistic explanation." However, a "non-miraculous, naturalistic explanation" is not Shane's problem as you are fully aware. His problem is his erroneous interpretation of the "days" of Genesis 1-2. Deal with the real issue, please. In your points #2 through #6, you speak of "an evolutionary explanation" again and again. This is not the real issue with Shane, is it? Shane does not teach the theory of evolution, but he does teach an erroneous position on the "days" of Genesis 1-2. Now, why is "an evolutionary explanation" not tolerated at Florida College, but an erroneous theory of Shane Scott is tolerated? Again, in your point #7, Shane would agree with you as you have it worded, but you know that he teaches that the "six days" are actually long ages (as per the "Day-Age" theory), or at least he used to, as will become more clear below. Simply quoting Exodus 20:11 will not settle this issue. Again, in your point # 7, you speak of "naturalistic conclusions," but this is not the real issue with Shane, is it? Finally, over and over in your response you write the words: "is not tolerated at Florida College." This of course is intended to sound good to the reader. But, what you are not telling the reader is that something is in fact tolerated at Florida College. What is tolerated is opposing views in the Bible Department on the same passage; namely, Genesis 1-2. To close this portion of my concerns, let me summarize by saying I am not bothered with what you are writing (all that you have written, to my knowledge, is true). It is what you are purposely not writing that is the problem. Please, come forth in print and address the real issue.
You write in your response (dated June 30, 2000) about some statements soon to be published in Truth Magazine. These statements will be your third time to address this issue publicly if I count correctly. Will you once again be vague and unclear, or will you be specific and address the real issue? I wait to see. The reason that I am so insistent that you be specific is because I am very familiar with the language used in the Creation - Evolution debate. I am also well aware that we can speak the same words (such as "I believed that God created the world in six days"), but mean many different things by those words. I would encourage you to read an article that I wrote in April of 1999 called, "Understanding the Terminology," if you haven't read it already. You can find it at: www.watchmanmag.com/0204/020424.htm.
My second concern is with your remark about "the age of the earth" that drew laughter as you introduced Robert Jackson the Thursday night of the 2000 Florida College Lectures. Why, brother, did you make light of this issue? What good did you possibly hope to accomplish by saying this? Your remark brought laughter among many in the audience (myself and other concerned brethren were certainly not laughing), and the implication was that "the age of the earth" is such an issue of little concern. Regardless of your motive or reason for saying it, your remark was inappropriate and has damaged your credibility with many sound brethren. How would you like it if our institutional brethren stood up in their lectureships and made light of our views on church support of human institutions and fellowships halls? I don't think you would take kindly to them doing this. Your few words on this occasion have brought trouble (Proverbs 21:23).
My third and final concern relates to Shane's teaching position at Florida College. Yes, he is teaching some truth about God's creation; and no, he is not teaching theistic evolution. I agree with you on this. But, Shane is also clearly teaching error about the "days" of Genesis 1-2. His teaching is not private only; it is also public. He has gone public with his views in Sentry Magazine. Do you have his article and have you read it? He has gone public with his views on his web page. Have you logged onto his web page and read his articles? He teaches his view as the correct view when asked by students in his Bible classes at Florida College. (Shane told me on July 19, 2000 that he has taught his view in the classroom. Let us not quibble over how many times he has done this, whether it was before, during or after class, or whether he was teaching it or simply responding to a student.) He also teaches his doctrine privately which does as much damage as public teaching. My concern is not with what you believe about the "days" of Genesis 1-1, but with your tolerance of Shane's error. I do not think you believe the same as he does on the "days" of Genesis 1-2. In fact, I'm sure you do not. But, why do you stand by, turn the other way and allow him to teach it and be associated with the Bible Department at Florida College? When I spoke at length with Shane by phone on the evening of July 19, 2000 concerning his views of Genesis 1-2, he told me that he is leaving behind the "Day-Age" theory and is now considering the "Framework Hypothesis" view as the best explanation of Genesis 1-2. Shane told me that he views the 6 "days" of Genesis 1-2, not as a literal and chronological record of what God did, but simply as an "analogy" of what God did in creation. Are you aware of this? Do you know what this view is? Let me encourage you to read Bert Thompson's review of the "Framework Hypothesis" in Creation Compromises, pp. 215-218, if you have not read it already.
In closing I make four requests:
(1) Please remove Shane Scott from the Bible Faculty at Florida College immediately. His view of Genesis 1-2 and your continued tolerance of it (I didn't say "agreement" with it) will only cause more division.
(2) Please print an official statement that speaks to the real issue using whatever means you have at your disposal (the Florida College Magazine, the Florida College Communiqué, the Florida College Web Page, etc.). Please make it clear that you believe God created the world in six literal, consecutive, 24-hour days (144 hours) and rested on the seventh day (a total of 1 week); and, any other teaching about the "days" of Genesis 1 is not tolerated at Florida College. This statement, or something similar, could easily be added as point #8 in your position statement that you already have in print.
(3) Please retract your statement that you made concerning the "age of the earth" at the 2000 Florida College Lectures and apologize for making it.
(4) Please state clearly that Florida College does not endorse Hill Roberts' erroneous views about Genesis 1-2 contained on his CD-ROM. Note that I said "CD-ROM." Let's not quibble about what he said in his day-lectures or why he was invited to come. The fact is, he passed out a CD-ROM at the 1999 Florida College Lectures that contains error. Do you have a copy of this CD-ROM and have you read the articles contained therein? One article on the CD-ROM called Genesis and the Time Thing outlines Roberts' view of how God used the Big Bang to produce a universe that is billions of years old. A second article called A Harmonization of God's Genesis Revelation and the Natural Revelation also contains error on the "days" of Genesis 1-2. While Hill Roberts may not have said anything wrong during his day-lectures, he certainly passed out a CD-ROM on the Florida College campus which contains error. A statement from you concerning this CD-ROM would go a long way in clearing up any supposed tolerance that Florida College has of Hill Roberts' erroneous views.
Brother Caldwell, I find no pleasure whatsoever in writing this letter. I am hurting deeply even as I type these words. Please hear me. Please do the right thing. Please stand for Truth. If you do not, I am resolved to do the following: (1) I will not support Florida College in any way; (2) I will not send my children to Florida College; and, (3) I will openly and actively discourage other young people from attending Florida College. (I will not "campaign" against the school, but I will, as the occasion presents itself, discourage young people from attending Florida College.)
My letter is being sent directly to you, and reasonable time will be given you to respond. However, I reserve the right to show this letter to whomever I wish, whenever I wish, regardless of when you see it or respond to it. I will not be dictated to, regarding who can see my letter or when they can see it. I keep hearing how good letters of concern written to address this issue are being criticized and discredited simply because others see them before the recipient reads it or has opportunity to respond to it. Don't discredit my letter simply on the basis of who sees my letter or when they see it. If I show this letter to others it will be for the sole purpose of informing them of this issue. I will not use this letter to tear down Florida College.
I hope you will hear me humbly, as I have tried to address you humbly. I await your reply.
Brotherly love in Christ,
Chris and Cheri Reeves
email this author at chrisreeves@juno.com