I wrote the following letter this morning.  The woman is from Meeker, Colorado.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Dear Mrs. ____________,

Thank you for your note of February 12^th.  You sent it to my mail box at the college and, being an adjunct instructor, I don’t check my mail there very often.  For this reason, my response to you has been delayed and I hope you don’t feel in any way that you have been ignored.  Quite to the contrary, I appreciate your kind words and have looked forward to responding to you since I found your envelope on Wednesday this week.

You said that “you enjoyed my line of reasoning” which is very kind indeed.  Though I must confess that most people only enjoy someone’s line of reasoning insofar as they feel it is not out of line with their own.  My expectation of your enjoyment of my line of reasoning here (though nearly exactly on the same lines as my article) is rather low.  Again, this is because the same line of reasoning so appreciated at one time will be disdained or even scorned at another because it no longer fits the desired conclusion but in fact is set powerfully against it.

You may have raised an eyebrow at this supposing that I am preparing for a verbal assault of some kind.  Hardly!  I only want to remind you of what I stated in the article “once esteemed” and demonstrate how it likely was not the line of reasoning but the conclusion that was truly the only part of the piece that you take pleasure in.

If you recall, I was showing how science does not prove much in the realm of history.  Rather, it is the historical method of eye-witness accounts that are most often employed to support historical claims.  In considering Abraham Lincoln, eye-witness accounts of his life, his ascendancy to the presidency, and his assassination, are the bread and butter of the historical method.  This is reasoning from testimony.  And the now the question of competence is at hand.

We do not agree with each person’s eye-witness account.  We use discernment every day to determine if what we are hearing is true.  The best question is regarding the source of information.  We need to know something of the witness. 

The courts of law in this land are well accustomed to the question of credibility of witnesses.  Some issues that should be addressed before accepting important testimony are these:  Is the witness competent to make these claims?  (Mentally stable, mental acute, physically equipped such as having the necessary vision to be capable of seeing what is alleged)  Was the witness in a position to see what is claimed?  (This includes spacial propinquity and specific conditions such as levels of light or obstructions)  Is there an ulterior motive for their testimony?  (Perhaps the witness benefits in some way from the story that he or she tells).  Is the witness capable of making an accurate assessment of the event in question?  (Since most testimony is at the level of peer, that is, an average everyday person, their conclusions about an event are summarily dismissed.  But what of the expert testimony?  These individuals claim to have special knowledge and ability to make judgments between possible conclusions.  A physician knows the human body.  A psychologist is said to know the human psyche.  An engineer understands buildings. )

And now, the question at hand.  You have supplied me with two pamphlets which I have read.  The pamphlets come from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York which also publishes the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a supposedly corrected version of the Bible.  I have also read this Bible and know that it differs greatly from the New International Version, Today’s English Version, New American Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, Revised Standard Version and the King James Version all of which are in relative agreement.  These other versions are not identical but they have none of the translation peculiarities of the NWT. 

It is a very easy matter to look at the credibility of the translators of each of these versions.  In most cases the translator’s names are listed in the introductory pages of the versions.  A quick Google search on these names tells you where they studied Greek and Hebrew, what academically vetted papers they have written, in short, you know their level of credibility.  These are men and women who have years of experience and expertise in the original languages and have proven their capability to the satisfaction of sacred and secular scholars alike.

The exception to this proof of credibility is the New World Translation.  I have personally called the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in New York to try to obtain the list of names of the translation committee.  I wanted to know the credibility of these experts.  Have they ever studied Greek and Hebrew?  If so, where?  Are they highly thought of in the world of ancient language scholars?   Have they written any scholarly works on Greek and Hebrew?  If so, what and how was it received by fellow scholars?

In calling the New York office I was given the simple and unsatisfying answer that the translation committee, out of humility, does not allow its names to be published.  They fear the attention that it might bring them.  Indeed!  Perhaps there is more reason to fear than they suppose.  A physician in the docket would readily prove his or her training and license to practice medicine.  An engineer would not expect to be believed until he or she proved the necessary qualifications.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publishes foundational material for Jehovah’s Witnesses that is radically different from everything that is put forth in numerous credible translations of the Bible.  If there was any evidence toward the credibility of the translators, we could have an interesting discussion about the differences between Christianity and the teachings of your faith.  But without dealing with this important issue of credibility, you can appreciate how all other discussions are unimportant.  The teachings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are as unimportant to me as the ramblings of a preschooler making up stories to tell her friends.  Why should you believe them?  The burden of proof remains unsatisfied.

If you can help me in this issue of credibility please find me most warmly inviting to further our discussions.

Sincerely,

David Morton

This month I began a new sermon series based on Hebrews 10:19-25.  In the NIV there are five "let us" verses that follow from our salvation.  They are decisions we must make in order to continue on in our faith in Christ.  This Sunday there will be an invitation to salvation, baptism, and rededication to Christ.  I am hoping that many people will take a very physical step toward God as we discuss "Let us draw near to God..."

I am saddened to read Lisa Miller's article "Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy."  It would be better to start the article with a simple statement saying that Newsweek endorses gay marriage and will do whatever it takes to move public opinion in that direction.  If Lisa Miller wanted to take a serious look at the issue she would need to actually talk to people who disagree with her.  This is the problem with most modern debates.  The opponent is not allowed a voice.  The opponent is attacked. 

To characterize those who take a literal view of the Bible as not being serious is the typical attack of the person who knows they have a weak argument and must resort to fallacies.  I have taught my logic students to walk away from an argument that degenerates into name calling with a "thank you" and an acknowledgment that those who give in to such fallacies admit their defeat.

Lisa Miller's arguments are so weak that she uses numerous fallacies to confuse the reader into thinking there must be some truth in there somewhere.  Ad hominems, hasty generalizations, red herrings, bandwagon, are all the bread and butter of the weak argument and are all found in several places within this poorly argued article.

I would challenge Newsweek to ask a conservative biblical scholar to write an article about why they do not support gay marriage.  I think you would find their writing much less fallacious and much more civil than Ms Miller's.  Albert Mohler has already done given his rebuttal and done so with the fairness and logic so missing in Ms Miller's piece.  (And no, I am not Southern Baptist.)  This is a challenge that will go unanswered.  I understand your desire to control public opinion rather than exploring issues.  But you should be aware that your own shrinking subscriptions will in the end marginalize if not completely silence your own opinions.

David Morton
Rangely, Colorado

Teri,

I just wanted to let you now a little about the discussion last night at the Leadership Council meeting.  Everyone agrees that the town is experiencing something more than a boom/bust cycle.  Rangely is growing.  Everyone agrees that our church is and can grow.  We named five options for what to do about it as a congregation.

1. Do nothing.  We will have about 60-65 attending 10 years from now.
2. Add a second service.  I'm not convinced we have the numbers to divide.
3. Build a new building.  This is a financial stretch but not impossible.
4. Rent larger space in town for worship (e.g., CNCC, RE-4)
5. Remodel the sanctuary.

Option #4 is also an immediate possibility.  There is cheap space available right now in town.  Of course you lose the ambiance of our sanctuary but the seating capacity would be plenty.  CNCC is willing to rent out the Colorado Room for $100/month to our congregation for Sunday morning worship.  Set up and tear down would be tough.  But we could do it.  We could even hire Ruth M.who currently cleans the church to help with set up and tear down each Sunday.  The good thing is the chairs are already there.

Option #5 is what you and I discussed over lunch.  The members of the Leadership Council thought it was possible but it's seems like a lot of money to spend when all you're getting is room for another 60 or so people.  In looking at the depth of the space if the sanctuary was turned on it's side, the people would likely sit to the right and left of the pulpit and not even use much of the middle four rows.  In addition, the bathrooms and parking situation would have to be addressed.  Our bathrooms are not ADA and are small as is.  Our parking lot is maxed out right now.  Adding 20 more cars means street parking and then some.  We could give up the lawn and park there.  We could have some angled parking by the garage.

At this point our plan is to ask the congregation to pray and then gather more information from many sources.  Jerry W. and I will probably travel out of town to visit some church building projects in Grand Junction.  We will talk with Duane N's (RE-4 superintendent) wife Stacy about her involvement with a new building campaign at the Methodist church in Meeker.  We would love to have your father's input on any of this.  He has good ideas.  Vicki B's father has been on many remodeling projects as a pastor and loves to design.  He will be getting us his recommendations.

That's it for now.  Since I started the conversation with you over lunch I thought you should be kept in the loop.

David