A Letter to Ferrell Jenkins Chris Reeves

Dear Watchman Magazine reader:

On July 25, 2000 I wrote Brother Jenkins, head of the Bible Department at Florida College, about my 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 Jenkins has seen this letter until now. I had not heard from Brother Jenkins 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. I still have not heard from Brother Jenkins.

I was hoping that Brother Jenkins would respond but he has not. I thought my positive relationship with both him and Florida College in the past would place some priority on my letter and that he would take it seriously and respond. I guess I was wrong. I know Brother Jenkins is busy, as all of us should be in the Lord's kingdom, but has he gotten so busy that he cannot communicate with his own brethren anymore? The only way for all of us to resolve this issue to communicate and study together. I stand ready to do that. I am always open to discussion of these matters. I hope Brother Jenkins is open to the same. I will continue to wait for Brother Jenkins' reply. If Brother Jenkins would like to publish his reply to my letter on Watchman Magazine, Stan Cox, editor of Watchman Magazine, will gladly publish it along with my letter.

I am reproducing my letter to Brother Jenkins 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 Jenkins and express them.

Brotherly,

Chris Reeves

Chris Reeves
5223 Hugh Woodard Rd.
Springfield, TN 37172

July 25, 2000

Ferrell Jenkins
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. Please grant me a few minutes of your time.

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, 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. Now to my concerns.

My first concern relates to some things you said in your lecture "Making Sense of the Days of Creation" which you presented at the 2000 Florida College Lectures. Yes, I attended your lecture and heard you speak. I have heard a copy of the tape. I have downloaded and read a copy of your lecture from your website. I realize my review of your comments is lengthy, but you spoke of much that needs to be addressed. (I wanted to "cut and paste" your full comments into my letter, but I have not figured out how to do that in the Adobe Acrobat Reader format. I will simply paraphrase and use basic quotes of your comments along with the corresponding page numbers. Anyone reading this letter can refer to your complete statements on your website or listen to the tape, of course.)

(1) You write in your preface about your travels to the Strait of Gibraltar and the English Channel and how you edited your speech there (page 1). What good did you possibly hope to accomplish with these statements, and what do they prove? Nothing at all. First, tell us what specific "extremes" you have in mind as per this current issue. You throw it out there, but you don't tell us what they are. Second, you speak of "the depths to which some men will go to discredit those with whom they disagree." Please tells us plainly who these men are; identify them for us, and tell us what they did to discredit others. Third, what if I wrote something similar such as this: "I was traveling around Robertson County, Tennessee earlier this spring and I saw the farmers planting their tobacco plants, and I was reminded of the noxious weeds of error that are growing at Florida College." Now brother, would that really help resolve the issue before us, or would that prove anything? Absolutely not. Or, how about this one: "Earlier this summer I traveled to Niagara Falls. As I watched the tremendous force of water going over the falls, I was reminded of the force of error at Florida College that is pushing that school over the edge." Now, let's be honest, does that kind of talk really help? No it doesn't. So, let's leave off the dramatics and story-telling and address the real issue.

(2) You spoke of folks leaving your lecture "disappointed," yourself included (page 1). You also spoke about how that you intentionally would not be giving all the answers (page 1). This is the over-all problem with your lecture. Your approach was open-ended on purpose. You were not definitive. There was no certainty about it. Your lecture could rightly have been called, "Various Views on the 'Days' of Genesis 1," but not "Making Sense of the Days of Creation." There was no sound, definite "sense" made of "days" of Genesis 1. The one thing you seem to be certain about, is that we cannot be certain about this issue. The one thing you seem to know, is that we cannot know for sure what the "days" are. This is disturbing.

(3) You say, "And then you are going to have to weigh that evidence and come to the conclusion that you think is best in harmony with the will of God" (page 2). But brother, what "conclusion" are we to draw about the "days" of Genesis 1? You speak of all these views (and there are several others that you did not touch on) and suggest that they could all be right or at least tolerated. So, if all these views should be tolerated as you suggest, how then are we to come to any such "conclusion" about these "days"?

(4) Under the heading, "Background to this Lecture Class," you spend a lot of time talking about how and why Hill Roberts spoke at the 1999 Florida College Lectures (page 2). Still, when you get done, you have not addressed the real issue. Tell us about Hill Roberts' erroneous beliefs on his CD-ROM that he passed out at the lectures. Do you tolerate his views as presented on this CD-ROM? That's the real issue. You said nothing about this in your 2000 Florida College lecture.

(5) Look at your comment that you inserted about Thomas G. O'Neal (page 2). Is that (to use your words) "e-gossip" and the "electronic mail chair"? Why is it "e-gossip" and the "electronic mail chair" for someone else to mention names in their e-mail, but it is not "e-gossip" and the "electronic mail chair" for you to insert his name into your lecture and put it on your website. Please help me to see the difference.

(6) I'm sure many who attended your lecture thought your comments about "e-gossip" and the "electronic mail chair" were cute; they brought about a lot of laughter (page 2). However, since when did gossip become a laughing matter? If some have gossiped about the current creation issue, as you say, then please share their names with me so I can contact them about it. If it can be established that they have sinned in this matter, I want to encourage them to repent so that they will not be lost. I will await the list of names.

(7) You talk about what you are "inclined to think" (page 2). You talk about how your view has "some problems," but then you go on to say that your "mind has been made up" on this topic. So, your mind is made up about a topic that has some problems. How comforting is that to the listener? This is more of the same, open-ended approach that you take throughout your speech.

(8) Under the heading, "What I Reject," you say many things that are true (page 3). I too reject macro-evolution and theistic evolution, but these things are not the issue, are they?. This is a waste of time talking about non-issues. The real issue is the toleration of opposing and contradictory views on the "days" of Genesis 1.

(9) You speak about our need to be willing to change our views (page 3). My question to you is, to how many Bible doctrines does this apply? Should we be willing to change on baptism for the remission of our sins as per Acts 2:38, or singing without an instrument as per Ephesians 5:19. You are aware, I'm sure, that brethren hold alternative views that you do on Acts 2:38 and Ephesians 5:19. Are you willing to change to tolerate their view on these passages? Should we change to tolerate Brother Hailey's position on marriage, divorce and remarriage? Should we change to tolerate Ed Fudge's view on Hell?

(10) In your list of "Serious Mistakes in our Study" you put "Noah's flood = flood geology" (page 3). I will not argue this point, but I do want to point out your inconsistency. You call it a "mistake," and then turn right around and say, "And it may be so, but I don't know absolutely that it is. I would have to say that may be another one of these mistakes" (emphasis mine). Now, is it a mistake or not? It bolsters your case to throw it in the list, but even you are not sure if it is a mistake. Brother, if nothing else, you should at least take it out of the list until you know for sure.

(11) Under the heading, "No Date for Creation in the Bible," you quote various ones who have said that the Bible does not set a date for creation (pages 3-4). Brother, this is not the issue. No one I know sets a specific date for creation. The no-date-for-creation argument is a smokescreen to dodge the real issue. The real issue is the toleration of various views on the same passage of scripture; namely, the "days" of Genesis 1-2.

(12) You go on to speak of a 4.5 billion date for the earth and say, "That is not right; at least we don't believe it. I certainly don't believe it" (page 4). True, but Shane Scott and Hill Roberts do believe this date. No, they don't accept the evolutionary theory that results in this date, but they do accept this date and then try to get the Bible to fit it.

(13) You start talking about how people in the past have tried to solve this issue. You outline some approaches, but that's all you do. Your whole approach is basically this: here are some views. My question brother, is this, "So what?" When you speak on the purpose of baptism, do you present all the views without stating which one is the truth? When you speak on music in the church, do you present all the views without stating which one is the truth? When you speak on premillennialism, do you present all the views (including the views of brethren in the past) without stating which one is the truth? Your open-ended approach is disappointing and disturbing.

(14) Then, under the heading, "How Then Shall We Solve the Problem?" you set out to help the audience (pages 5-7). But, when all is said and done, you have not helped them at all. All you do is mention various views, the brethren (and non-Christians) who have held these views and your personal comments about whether or not you think the views are correct. You talk about "lots of possibilities" (page 5). You'll say something like, "Personally, I don't believe that view" (page 5), or "I don't accept that" (page 5). Then you raise the question, "Must we decide?" implying that we must not decide (page 5). You see, you don't believe or accept these views, but you will tolerate them. This whole approach casts doubt on the certainty of knowing the truth about this issue. You gave the audience no help to "solve the problem."

(15) In one part of your speech you spoke against dogmatism several times (pages 5-6). Is it wrong to be dogmatic on Bible doctrines (see the Gr. dogma in Acts 16:4)? Let's try that on the doctrines of baptism, instrumental music, institutionalism and M-D-R. Should we give up the truth on these and other issues when our opponent charges us with being dogmatic as they have done many times in the past? Is it "dogmatic" to say that a person "must" be baptized in order to be saved? Is it "dogmatic" to say that a person "must" sing unaccompanied by an instrument? I could go on, but you get my point.

(16) You quote Brother Jim Hodges and Batsell Barrett Baxter in order to make a point that we can agree that God created the world, but we don't have to agree on "how" God did it (page 6). This is dangerous thinking. The logical conclusion of this argument would leave open the possibility of "Theistic Evolution," the very thing that you say will not be tolerated at Florida College. "Theistic Evolution" is simply one possibility that many have suggested as to "how" God may have created the world.

(17) When you speak of "The Gap Theory" and "The Pre-Adamic Race," you talk about brethren and others filling in the "blank space." In other words, some have a built a doctrine on the "blank space" in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Is this a good thing? Should this be tolerated as you suggest? Since when do we build doctrines on a "blank space" in the Bible? Are there other places in the Bible where a "blank space" exists where we might build a doctrine? This is the old "where does the Bible say not to" approach, or the "Bible is silent, but I'm still going to believe it anyway" approach. It is disturbing that you would lend acceptance to this approach. I know you don't believe these views, you said so, but you do tolerate them. The views that you tolerate are based upon faulty hermeneutics and you know it.

(18) You quote throughout your speech from brethren that have held various view on the "days" of Genesis - Wallace, Nichol, Whiteside, etc. (page 7). What does this prove? Nothing. I can quote brethren who believed in premillennialism, instrumental music, institutionalism, etc., but that would not make those doctrines right.

(19) When talking about the "Problems With the Gap Theory," you once again talk about the "blank space," but you also said something else that is disturbing (page 7). You talked about how that this view is based upon a passage that is "taken out of context" (page 7). So, we have brethren believing a view based upon a passage taken out of context, and you want me to tolerate such a view? Am I missing something? I thought we have said in the past that a passage taken out of context (and the doctrine built thereon) is a bad thing. Am I wrong? If not, then why tolerate this view?

(20) Now to your conclusion (pages 7-9). You said, "I'm going to preach for about 30 seconds." Well, brother, your 30 seconds of preaching here hurt the efforts being made to resolve this issue. You said many things that were inconsistent and inappropriate.

First, you talk about settling the "problem" about this issue in the local church (page 7). There will be no "problem" according to you, because all these views should be tolerated, right? How could there be a "problem" once we learn from you that all these views should be tolerated?

Second, you speak of brethren who "strongly believe in creation," but who hold differing views on the "days" of creation. You imply that we should tolerate these brethren. Does that work also with baptism, premillennialism, institutionalism, instrumental music, M-D-R, etc.? If two brethren strongly agree on music, but differ on their views of the instrument, should instrumental music be tolerated in the local church? If two brethren strongly agree on Christ's return, but differ on the how, when and where of his return, should premillennialism be tolerated in the local church? Apply that line of reasoning to institutionalism, baptism and M-D-R and see what you get. If brethren strongly agree on marriage, but differ on the causes of divorce and remarriage or to whom the Law of Christ applies, should that all be tolerated in the local church? Brother, where will you draw the line? Is there any Bible doctrine to which you will say that brethren "must" agree?

Third, you speak of gospel meetings and being busying reaching the lost (pages 8). I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Brother, this was a slam against sound and concerned brethren who have been trying to address this issue for the past year. You want to know how long it's been since I have had a gospel meeting that reached the lost? Just a few weeks ago! You want to know if I've been out reaching the lost? I'll tell you every week! I have a weekly radio program centered on reaching the lost and I teach a Thursday afternoon Bible class at the local jail. (One female inmate now wants to be baptized.) This does not include the weekly follow-up studies that I have opportunity to have with visitors and prospects. In fact, during the few days that I have been composing this letter to you, I have taken time to reach the lost! So, brother, reaching the lost is a non-issue. This was simply a smokescreen and dodge on your part and a slam against some genuinely concerned brethren. I make time to do both; reach the lost and address issues inside the body of Christ. I hope you do too.

Fourth, you talk about getting back to preaching the "distinctive message" (page 8). I don't know of anyone involved in this issue who has neglected preaching the distinctive message. This was another slam on your part against certain brethren. You say that we would not have time to "fight with one another over this" if we would just preach the distinct message. Brother, apply this to yourself. You would not have time to talk about this at the 2000 Florida College Lectures if you were out reaching the lost and preaching the distinctive message, right? Why can you address it, but others should not?

Fifth, you say, "And there is nobody in our brotherhood who can say, 'This is it and you've all got to agree with my view" (page 8). You have obviously applied this to the "days" of Genesis 1 issue. Do you apply this to other Bible doctrines? Are there any Bible doctrines upon which we must all agree? Please tell me.

Sixth, you say, "Let us be less 'crisis minded'" (page 8). Once again this is a slam. It does nothing to help resolve this issue. Those who are concerned about Shane Scott's teaching are not "crisis minded." Were the brethren (yourself included) who fought the institutional battles 40 to 50 years ago "crisis minded"? Were you "crisis minded" when you published your charts on institutionalism or had your exchange with Art Odgen over the date of Revelation? Your "crisis minded" argument is simply a smokescreen, and many good brethren have seen right through it.

Seventh, you said, "And once E-mail came in, brethren started to condemn people on E-mail" (pages 8-9). Brother, could you please give me a list of the brethren who have done what you said? I will try to contact them to see if any wrong-doing has transpired. I await your list.

Eighth, you say, "I am not against issues being discussed" (page 9). To that statement I say, "Amen." You just took away your whole case about preaching to the lost, being less "crisis minded," etc. The brethren that I know, who are addressing this issue are doing the very thing that you say you are not against, so why all the smokescreens, dodges and slams? Good brethren have simply wanted to discuss this issue, so let's get on with it and discuss it.

My second concern relates to materials you have posted on your web page (bibleworld.com). To date, you still have not posted the "Open Letter." You have not posted Harry Osborne's response to Colly Caldwell, nor have you posted responses that the co-signers of the "Open Letter" have made to Brother Caldwell. There is criticism about the "Open Letter" on your website, but the reader who gets on your webpage can't even read the "Open Letter"! You have biased and prejudiced the case by posting only one side of the issue. I trust that you will soon post the proper materials which represent both sides of the issue.

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, influence others 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 have 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 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.

(4) Please provide a better representation of the issue on your web page.

Brother Jenkins, 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 Reeves

email this author at chrisreeves@juno.com

Return to Watchman Front Page