Instead of enlightening us as to whether the days of Genesis one are literal days, our brother Floyd Chappelear trivialized the subject by calling it a tempest in a teapot. Challenged on the point, he offered no evidence or rationale by which one may interpret "day" to mean "eon." He said nothing.

     Instead of showing any respect to those who believe it is important to view a day made up of evening and morning as a literal day, he impugned the hearts and motives of 67 of his brethren. Challenged on the point, he neither apologized nor supported his harsh judgment. He said nothing.

     Instead of showing why others' willingness to defend a doctrinal position with Scripture is a creed, he began his attack by giving us his "I believe." Challenged, he offered no explanation as to why it is a creed when others say they will debate a proposition, but it is not a creed when he says "I believe" and sets forth his belief (credo, creed). He said nothing.

     Instead of showing any evidence at all that the 67 signatories were seeking power, he told us of an underwriting for extra issues of his paper (Sentry), asked for some addresses, and offered free copies to those who supplied the addresses. Challenged, he offered no explanation. He said nothing.

     What he did say never addressed the subject (days of creation), the underlying issue (unity in diversity) or his ability and right to read hearts and judge motives. What he did was launch another personal attack with nothing to support it except his own imagined mind-reading ability. He said of me and my response:

     Floyd missed the whole parade, and what he said in the quoted paragraph is altogether false.

     First, I did not misrepresent Floyd on anything.

     Second, I never said he solicited funds. I never thought it. That is a misrepresentation. He needs to read what I said and not ascribe to me what he thinks I meant.

     Third, I was not "insinuating" then and I am not insinuating now that Floyd solicited funds. That he did or did not has nothing to do with anything. I could care less. If he did, I am not criticizing it here. What I did and am doing is deflecting his criticism of others by calling attention to the fact that he is the only one who has taken this occasion to promote a paper -- his paper. And I am not "insinuating" that; I am plainly stating it.

     He reminds me of the fellow who accused the policeman of being drunk because, he said, "I see two of you." Floyd promotes his paper and accuses everyone else of seeking power and influence.

     Fourth, he should not whimper that I did not call him first -- I had no reason to call him. I did not judge his motives, but simply reviewed his public arguments. I did not accuse him of anything. But he had reason to call the 67, for he took it in hand to publicly malign them for what he surmised was in their hearts without even talking to them.

     Fifth, I then hastened to add that I did not accuse him of seeking power or influence in an evil sense. I say it again. I do not believe he had or has bad motives. I only accuse him of confusion evidenced by inconsistency, and of evil surmising against 67 of his brethren.

     Floyd, you owe no less than 67 apologies here. You ought to do it, and stop the personal attacks.

     Then I appeal to you to either drop the subject or pick out one of the 67 signatories and tell him that you will affirm that the days of Genesis one are not literal days and/or that it does not matter.

     Uh, kindly pick out one of the other 66 (leave me out of it). That way you cannot say I am seeking power or influence. But, lest you say I am refusing or ducking, I will, if it is your wish, discuss the subject with you in the pages of Sentry. You call it.

by Jere Frost