Response to Connie Adams

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:

Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 15  p8  August 3, 2000