Great Homeschool Conventions kerfluffle, continued

[angela in ohio]

I find it interesting that Mr. Ham accuses the convention board of not coming to him to speak to him in a Christian manner about these matters before sending him a letter of dismissal.

 

But did Mr. Ham speak with the organizers of the convention about his disagreements with one or more of the other speakers, telling them that he could not in good faith speak at their conventions without raising the issues that he had with them? I think not. Why are the convention organizers held to a different standard than he, himself?

 

According to his post, he did do that.

[PeterPan]

And people actually in attendance at at the conference visited Susan at the PHP booth to let her know what was being said.

 

That's always the best way to get the most precise details on what EXACTLY was said. :glare:

 

This is the thing that confuses me. People are all entitled to believe what they believe, but the things people are *saying* was said (as in hearsay) are different from what's on the blog. And what's on the blog is the same type of stuff (same thought process and belief system) he has had for YEARS. It just seems to me people are willing to take big leaps here without a lot of actual FACTS. Facts would be a transcript of the session and where it directly violates his contract. Everything else is opinion, preference, or a person's take, which of course they're more than able to have. We just seem to be having a big bonfire without even the facts yet.

[mom31257]

I intended to say that I am glad *other* conventions have taken a different turn and we have more options. If people want a highly restrictive conference there are already plenty of them out there.

 

The Greenville one was conservative enough for my dh to be happy to attend. He says going to homeschool conferences is the only time he feels liberal!

 

BTW, I'm the one who recognized you from your picture and came up before SWB's talk on getting ready for college. It was nice to meet you! I still truly enjoyed it despite all of this stuff.

[Mrs Mungo]

But, again, it was a direct ad hominem attack that led to that. It wasn't agreeing to disagee on a doctrinal position, but SL's speaker daring CHEC to throw him out because CHEC couldn't handle a different position. Something to the effect of--they won't like it and I DARE them to throw me out! And yeah, I was in the room when the whole brouhaha happened that started it. A class act, such as Dr. Wile doesn't go around stirring up disension and trying to set themselves up in direct competition--what SL did setting up across the street during the CHEC event.

 

Margaret, thanks for the info, I can see how that would lead to the same sort of problems.

 

OTOH, I can sort of see setting up near a conference because there are people who will want to buy from them. It can be tricky.

[Sophia]

That's always the best way to get the most precise details on what EXACTLY was said. :glare:

 

This is the thing that confuses me. People are all entitled to believe what they believe, but the things people are *saying* was said (as in hearsay) are different from what's on the blog. And what's on the blog is the same type of stuff (same thought process and belief system) he has had for YEARS. It just seems to me people are willing to take big leaps here without a lot of actual FACTS. Facts would be a transcript of the session and where it directly violates his contract. Everything else is opinion, preference, or a person's take, which of course they're more than able to have. We just seem to be having a big bonfire without even the facts yet.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

The Greenville one was conservative enough for my dh to be happy to attend. He says going to homeschool conferences is the only time he feels liberal!

 

LOL!!

 

BTW, I'm the one who recognized you from your picture and came up before SWB's talk on getting ready for college. It was nice to meet you! I still truly enjoyed it despite all of this stuff.

 

It was great meeting you too!

[simka2]

That's always the best way to get the most precise details on what EXACTLY was said. :glare:

 

This is the thing that confuses me. People are all entitled to believe what they believe, but the things people are *saying* was said (as in hearsay) are different from what's on the blog. And what's on the blog is the same type of stuff (same thought process and belief system) he has had for YEARS. It just seems to me people are willing to take big leaps here without a lot of actual FACTS. Facts would be a transcript of the session and where it directly violates his contract. Everything else is opinion, preference, or a person's take, which of course they're more than able to have. We just seem to be having a big bonfire without even the facts yet.

 

Wait. He's been speaking against other conference speakers for years? The problem is not his beliefs, it what he said/wrote and alluded to in regards to other presenters.

[PeterPan]

This is what Ken Ham has to say on his FB note:

 

 

 

So he definitely did mention them in his talk in a negative manner.

 

Ok, let's be really clear on this. We're supposed to jump from "compromiser" (which while loaded is consistent with his previously expressed viewpoints before he was signed and an actual legitimate term for his religious viewpoint) with this:

********

"And in the middle of all this, people would come up to our booth and say, "Are you aware that other speakers are telling people in their workshops that Dr. Bauer is out to remove all Christianity from homeschooling and that's she's not even a Christian and that we shouldn't buy any of her materials?"

********

This is what SWB had people come up to her saying. That is NOT the same as calling Enns (or anyone else for that matter) a compromiser. I mean I'm being very specific here. To compromise is a very specific religious term, not vague, and means very specific things for those of his viewpoint. I also think others here, not of his viewpoint, might interpret that term differently or not like it, but he means very specific doctrinal things by it. Besides, we're shocked a man who spends his days teaching and debating nuances of creation science, evolution, doctrine, and compromise or the dangers of error in those viewpoints in the christian community would get up and say something? That's what he DOES. They knew that going in.

 

We've heard a whole lot of the TALK, from ear to ear, what somebody interprets as what somebody said. I just want to know if they actually took the time to read the transcripts or listen to the tapes and find out for themselves.

Edited March 23, 2011 by OhElizabeth

[kchara]

I would honestly like to see a transcript, as well. Not because I don't believe that what is being reported was said, and that it was out of line (based on his other posts on FB) but I'd like to see word for word. I think it would be very wise for the convention to put out one.

[PeterPan]

Wait. He's been speaking against other conference speakers for years? The problem is not his beliefs, it what he said/wrote and alluded to in regards to other presenters.

 

I go back to my point. We're assuming we *know* exactly what was said. The hearsay we've been reading on the boards is not matching up with his blog. We're assuming we know the stipulations of his contract or his understanding with the Deans. We're assuming the rules *we* would like or imagine ought to be there *were* the rules of the game.

 

Lots of assumptions, not a lot of clear facts yet.

Edited March 23, 2011 by OhElizabeth

[simka2]

I go back to my point. We're assuming we *know* exactly what was said. The hearsay we've been reading on the boards is not matching up with his blog. We're assuming we know the stipulations of his contract or his understanding with the Brennan's. We're assuming the rules *we* would like or imagine ought to be there *were* the rules of the game.

 

Lots of assumptions, not a lot of clear facts yet.

 

Yes, I will give you that. I was working from the premise that the conference leaders would not have made the decision to "dis-invite" him without first consulting their lawyers. I could not fathom them doing that with this large of a venue.

[PeterPan]

Yes, I will give you that. I was working from the premise that the conference leaders would not have made the decision to "dis-invite" him without first consulting their lawyers. I could not fathom them doing that with this large of a venue.

 

Well that's a really interesting proposition. Think through this. When did the last convention finish? When was this email sent off to notify Ken Ham of his dismissal? Exactly how long was that? Chew on that a bit. I HOPE they did their homework. I HOPE they actually listened to the recordings and heard firsthand what was said.

 

Hear me straight: I have no clue what was said. I'm just saying we've got a lot of people willing to jump, bring matches, and torch the guy because SOME WOMAN CAME UP TO SWB AND SAID HE SAID SHE WAS... and someone else maybe said such and such and... I assume they got some emails or other feedback from someone. But how do you sort through that, having come back on a plane, with little sleep, go to church, get a board together, pull the tapes, call all the affected parties, attempt to build a workable private solution, find it's not working, and pump out that email by Sunday night? Oh, they didn't do that. ;)

[melissel]

I go back to my point. We're assuming we *know* exactly what was said. The hearsay we've been reading on the boards is not matching up with his blog. We're assuming we know the stipulations of his contract or his understanding with the Brennan's. We're assuming the rules *we* would like or imagine ought to be there *were* the rules of the game.

 

Lots of assumptions, not a lot of clear facts yet.

 

Well, unless someone knew that he was planning to defame them in his sessions, how would they know to go listen in person to confirm? Personally, I think several unrelated people showing up at the PHP booth reporting that he was badmouthing Susan and the PHP materials is a pretty good indicator that something ugly was going on. At least one person here has said that she was unhappy with what he said in his session. All signs point to ugliness.

 

As for transcripts, I too would love to see one, but it doesn't seem like every session is recorded. I wonder if it is up to the presenters to organize recording? Even if the Deans do have a transcript, I would not be surprised if they refused to release it in an effort to quash the controversy. And if he does, maybe HE should be the one to fork it over.

 

ETA: He's a pretty big name. Maybe someone who matters was actually IN his sessions to hear what was said specifically?

Edited March 23, 2011 by melissel

[KnitWit]

I can only speak for myself. I have not made a single comment because "some woman came up and told SWB *anything*". Many of these writers keep blogs and facebook pages. I have been reading and watching this bubble up all over the place. I read Ken Ham, SWB AND Jay Wile and read it as it came out.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, unless someone knew that he was planning to defame them in his sessions, how would they know to go listen in person to confirm? Personally, I think several unrelated people showing up at the PHP booth reporting that he was badmouthing Susan and the PHP materials is a pretty good indicator that something ugly was going on. At least one person here has said that she was unhappy with what he said in his session. All signs point to ugliness.

 

 

 

 

People on FB mentioned that emails from him regarding the other presenters were being forwarded around prior to the convention so I think it would be safe to postulate that it was anticipated.

[PeterPan]

Well, unless someone knew that he was planning to defame them in his sessions, how would they know to go listen in person to confirm?

 

Defame and DECRY are two different things. We're talking matters of honest theological debate, and he's a speaker for whom that's his task, why he comes, to talk through complex ideas of theology and science and how they apply to people who hold his viewpoint. So we're SHOCKED when he does it??? That's not the same as defaming or libel. If you read in the other thread I started asking for FACTS, Regena said he (Ham) actually had video clips of Enns that he was discussing, ie. present the source, give his spin (Ham's job) and let the people decide.

 

There are undoubtedly tapes of these sessions.

Edited March 23, 2011 by OhElizabeth

[FloridaLisa]

As for transcripts, I too would love to see one, but it doesn't seem like every session is recorded. I wonder if it is up to the presenters to organize recording? Even if the Deans do have a transcript, I would not be surprised if they refused to release it in an effort to quash the controversy. And if he does, maybe HE should be the one to fork it over.

 

 

I think almost all sessions are recorded by Rhino Tecnologies (Industries?), which likely holds the rights to the recordings.

 

Lisa

[Guest pianomama]

The Greenville one was conservative enough for my dh to be happy to attend. He says going to homeschool conferences is the only time he feels liberal!

 

LOL - my DH always says that convention weekend is the one weekend a year we are the "liberal HSers with the small family".

[simka2]

Well that's a really interesting proposition. Think through this. When did the last convention finish? When was this email sent off to notify Ken Ham of his dismissal? Exactly how long was that? Chew on that a bit. I HOPE they did their homework. I HOPE they actually listened to the recordings and heard firsthand what was said.

 

Hear me straight: I have no clue what was said. I'm just saying we've got a lot of people willing to jump, bring matches, and torch the guy because SOME WOMAN CAME UP TO SWB AND SAID HE SAID SHE WAS... and someone else maybe said such and such and... I assume they got some emails or other feedback from someone. But how do you sort through that, having come back on a plane, with little sleep, go to church, get a board together, pull the tapes, call all the affected parties, attempt to build a workable private solution, find it's not working, and pump out that email by Sunday night? Oh, they didn't do that. ;)

 

People on FB mentioned that emails from him regarding the other presenters were being forwarded around prior to the convention so I think it would be safe to postulate that it was anticipated.

 

I think what Sis said is important. The timeline is not as clear cut as we think. I could care less what some people said to Susan at her booth. But, I still think what he did there and on his blog, was at the least unethical. It will be easy to see how this plays out ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

If there was a contract stipulating vendors not bash each other, then why do you need to hear what was said during the session in question? He launched an ad hominem attack against a vendor that had *nooothing* to do with problems in the curriculum offered.

 

Saying Dr. Enns (and by six degrees of Kevin Bacon Susan Wise Bauer and by defending Dr. Enns Jay Wile is implicated) is shaking his fist at God and everyone should BEWARE (not be aware) and that they are attacking the Word of God and Christ and that it's too bad the conferences has decided to be a bunch of COMPROMISERS that way. AND he tells a lie: "So sad--that this sort of teaching is now infiltrating the Homeschool movement. Peter Enns is involved (along with Susan Wise Bauer) is involved with the very liberal Biologos group and involved in now producing Bible curriculum for Homeschools. So please be warned." Susan said she was not involved in that organization. So, I think it's pretty safe to say he violated a contract not to bash his competitors regardless of what he said in a session.

 

A speaker saying "well, I disagree with the formulaic writing taught in the IEW course because..." is different than a speaker saying "Andrew Pudewa is x, y, z and therefore you should not buy from him." If he had said "I read this curriculum and I felt this and this were wrong on points of doctrine," that would be different than what he did.

[PeterPan]

People on FB mentioned that emails from him regarding the other presenters were being forwarded around prior to the convention so I think it would be safe to postulate that it was anticipated.

 

Sorry, I couldn't find this on the GHC FB page. I read it a while ago, so maybe I missed it? In any case, I'm on the AIG general mailing list, and I don't have anything like that, just your normal sales pitch and specials emails. Was this a copy of his blog/fb posts, like maybe something that feeds into their email? I don't understand how all that stuff works.

 

So now we're back to his blog comments, which seem, for him, pretty run-of-the-mill and consistent with his beliefs, things he has conveyed for years and of which the Deans were fully aware.

[simka2]

Sorry, I couldn't find this on the GHC FB page. I read it a while ago, so maybe I missed it? In any case, I'm on the AIG general mailing list, and I don't have anything like that, just your normal sales pitch and specials emails. Was this a copy of his blog/fb posts, like maybe something that feeds into their email? I don't understand how all that stuff works.

 

So now we're back to his blog comments, which seem, for him, pretty run-of-the-mill and consistent with his beliefs, things he has conveyed for years and of which the Deans were fully aware.

 

Even the posters on his FB mention recieving warning emails. He may have not been directly responsible, but it probly shot some red flags up :D.

[Slartibartfast]

Sorry, I couldn't find this on the GHC FB page. I read it a while ago, so maybe I missed it?

 

Here

 

 

 

Very disappointed in the handling of this matter. I received a forward before the Greenville convention from a friend of Ken Ham's warning of Dr. Enns' beliefs and teachings. I personally would not have Dr. Enns in my convention, but it's not my convention. I most certainly appreciated the "heads up" since this was our first conven...tion in the 4 years of homeschooling. I would not want to waste my time sitting in a lecture that is in direct conflict with my belief system. I have many friends with different world views, and I do not slam them. I simply don't agree with them. I did not feel like Ken Ham was slamming Dr. Enns at all, but simply informing us. This is a very sad state of affairs in the handling of this situation and casting out one who is bold enough to shine a light on the teaching of one that I consider to be a false teacher.

[Mrs Mungo]

Defame and DECRY are two different things.

 

Defame: to harm the reputation of by libel or slander

 

Slander (legal definition): Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. The definition of libel is longer, there are various levels.

 

We're talking matters of honest theological debate, and he's a speaker for whom that's his task, why he comes, to talk through complex ideas of theology and science and how they apply to people who hold his viewpoint. So we're SHOCKED when he does it??? That's not the same as defaming or libel. If you read in the other thread I started asking for FACTS, Regena said he (Ham) actually had video clips of Enns that he was discussing, ie. present the source, give his spin (Ham's job) and let the people decide.

 

Are you saying that Dr. Enns and Dr. Bauer attack Christ? That they were shaking their fists at God? That it those are factual statements? Are you saying Dr. Ham meant nothing by it? Are you saying that their professional reputation was not at stake at a conference at which products from all parties were being sold? What part of it does not fit the definition.

 

So now we're back to his blog comments, which seem, for him, pretty run-of-the-mill and consistent with his beliefs, things he has conveyed for years and of which the Deans were fully aware.

 

I think his facebook comments were worse than the blog, did you read those?

Edited March 23, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Tree House Academy]

From the quote above, it sure sounds like Ken Ham's issue was more about that fact that both he AND Mr. Enns were invited to the same conference. A little "one horse town" mentality at work perhaps....

[melissel]

Defame and DECRY are two different things. We're talking matters of honest theological debate, and he's a speaker for whom that's his task, why he comes, to talk through complex ideas of theology and science and how they apply to people who hold his viewpoint. So we're SHOCKED when he does it??? That's not the same as defaming or libel. If you read in the other thread I started asking for FACTS, Regena said he (Ham) actually had video clips of Enns that he was discussing, ie. present the source, give his spin (Ham's job) and let the people decide.

 

There are undoubtedly tapes of these sessions.

 

Thank you, I'm well aware of the difference in definition between defame and decry. According to Susan, people (plural) made it a point to come to her booth at the conference and report what they had heard. If what they reported is accurate, yes, I believe that is defamation--of her character and the character and intentions of her business. I can only imagine how seriously any Christian--let alone a minister's wife--would take a claim that she is "out to remove all Christianity from homeschooling and that's she's not even a Christian and that we shouldn't buy any of her materials?"

 

One of his Facebook supporters posted that she "received a forward before the Greenville convention from a friend of Ken Ham's warning of Dr. Enns' beliefs and teachings." As Mrs. Mungo pointed out, Ham's own Facebook post stated, "Ken Ham did mention Peter Enns by name in one of his five talks at an earlier South Carolina convention in Greenville organized by Mr. Dean. Ken showed two video clips of Dr. Enns, done in the context of showing how some modern Christian speakers are compromising God’s Word in Genesis. Ken did say that Dr. Enns was also speaking at the conference and had connections to another convention speaker, Susan Wise Bauer. In another talk about a common Christian viewpoint that compromises Genesis, Ken briefly mentioned that one of the speakers at this convention took that view."

 

IMO, once you start naming names, especially of your fellow presenters, you have crossed the line from simply decrying "compromisers" into defaming actual people with actual businesses.

[PeterPan]

From the quote above, it sure sounds like Ken Ham's issue was more about that fact that both he AND Mr. Enns were invited to the same conference. A little "one horse town" mentality at work perhaps....

 

Uh no actually, and I think that's what people don't get. His use of the term compromise is very specific to his religious viewpoint. To certain religious viewpoints, if you appear on the same platform/stage/venue with others who "compromise" or teach what you consider false on certain "non-negotiables" or essentials and you DON'T speak out, then *you* are the compromiser. Ie. he would have become the very thing he condemns by going along. He told that upfront. His only two options religiously were go and say something or not go. He couldn't religiously be on the same roster with someone who has a polar opposite of his teaching and *not* say something. Maybe others can. That's *their* religious viewpoint, that they are not compromising if they do that. But for him he *can't*. And while people might not *agree* with that, they can at least acknowledge the difference.

 

This is a very real issue for people and extends to other areas as well (whether a pastor of these type would do an evangelistic service with mixed faiths who taught very contraditory things, etc. etc.). All very controversial, and I'm not trying to talk about that. I'm just trying to say he *had* to be true to his beliefs, or he would become the very thing he condemns.

[PeterPan]

"Ken Ham did mention Peter Enns by name in one of his five talks at an earlier South Carolina convention in Greenville organized by Mr. Dean. Ken showed two video clips of Dr. Enns, done in the context of showing how some modern Christian speakers are compromising God’s Word in Genesis. Ken did say that Dr. Enns was also speaking at the conference and had connections to another convention speaker, Susan Wise Bauer. In another talk about a common Christian viewpoint that compromises Genesis, Ken briefly mentioned that one of the speakers at this convention took that view."

 

 

Wow, seems kind of small when you put it that way. Which I guess was their (AIG's) point. Sure makes you wonder how they couldn't have gotten the tapes and worked it out privately.

[Mrs Mungo]

Then why sign a contract saying you won't bash other speakers at the conference? He's automatically a compromiser and liar if he signed such a document in bad faith.

[Tree House Academy]

I think I will stay out of this one.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Tree House Academy

[tex-mex]

:grouphug: I'm so sorry for all the stress this has caused you! :grouphug:

:iagree: I am sorry this happened to you. :grouphug:

[melissel]

Wow, seems kind of small when you put it that way. Which I guess was their (AIG's) point. Sure makes you wonder how they couldn't have gotten the tapes and worked it out privately.

 

Frankly, I don't think it's small at all. If what you say is true about his stance against compromisers, I think intentionally taking a speaking engagement that will put you in direct conflict with other speakers so that you can say negative things about them when they're not aware of it is very big, actually, and screams of a certain kind of entitlement to which I personally don't believe anyone is entitled. He may disagree. I imagine the Deans didn't feel comfortable putting other invited speakers in the position of having to take the high road in order to meet their obligations. I wouldn't either.

[PeterPan]

I think I will stay out of this one.

 

You're telling me, lol. I'm going to BED. :)

[EthiopianFood]

The Great Homeschool Conventions organizers just called to tell me that Ken Ham has been disinvited from his speeches at the Cincinnati convention.

 

This was a private conversation between the organizers and Mr. Ham, but since he has now made it public on his Facebook page, they wanted me (and others) to know that this was done NOT because of his point of view (they still have three other invited "young earth ministries" in attendance), nor even because of his disagreements with Dr. Enns, but because of his personal attacks on Dr. Enns, Dr. Wile, and myself. (This was also an independent decisions arrived at by the organizers. None of us, to my knowledge, lobbied or asked for it. We get sniped at a lot. It's not really anything new.)

 

They also wanted to make it clear that several of the board members who stood behind this decision have similar objections to Dr. Enns' work. However, they felt that on this issue, there was room for a diversity of opinions.

 

I appreciate the courtesy shown to invited speakers by the convention organizers (and in fact would like to point out that every state convention I've ever spoken at has a contractual clause asking speakers not to condemn OTHER speakers at the same convention).

 

Judging from the size of the FB thread, which I haven't read (I'm kind of scared to), Mr. Ham's followers will interpret this as persecution. If you have a chance to stand up for civility, even in disagreement, between Christians, I encourage you to be vocal in your support.

 

The conference will be issuing a statement.

 

SWB

 

:thumbup:

[LizzyBee]

Sorry, I couldn't find this on the GHC FB page. I read it a while ago, so maybe I missed it? In any case, I'm on the AIG general mailing list, and I don't have anything like that, just your normal sales pitch and specials emails. Was this a copy of his blog/fb posts, like maybe something that feeds into their email? I don't understand how all that stuff works.

 

So now we're back to his blog comments, which seem, for him, pretty run-of-the-mill and consistent with his beliefs, things he has conveyed for years and of which the Deans were fully aware.

 

Several weeks ago, a local homeschool loop circulated a scathing warning about Peter Enns, SWB, BioLogos, and Telling God's Story. The email was taken word for word from the AIG website, but I don't know whether it originated from AIG or from someone who read it, copied it, and emailed it. I did some fact-checking, and the email was full of misinformation. It didn't mention the conventions, but if he was spreading the same untruths at the conventions, I'm personally glad he was disinvited. I sent a reply to the local loop that was circulating the email to correct some of the misinformation, and the owner of the loop bounced it back to me. It's unfortunate that people would rather believe lies than take the time to find the truth (referring to my local hs group, not anyone here).

[Heather in Neverland]

Um... wow... and here I was, all bummed out because living on this side of the world means no GHC for me! Sounds like a good thing now. I have enough drama in my life as it is!

[newlifemom]

I was just on the GHC facebook page, and I would just like to say:

 

I <333 Aubrey.

 

Link please. :001_smile:

[Shawna in Texas]

So, whatever happened to warning against Atheists, Pagans, and various other non-Christians?

 

This is like cannibalism...or mothers eating their young. I can't tell which.

[MtnTeaching]

WOW! Just last week, I cashed in my miles, made my hotel reservation and registered for my very first Great Homeschool Convention. I was feeling that my local CHEC conference was getting a bit dull and possibly a bit narrow-minded.

 

After reading all of the posts and blogs, I don't know whether to cry or to laugh hysterically. One thing is for certain- Cincinnati probably won't be putting on a dull convention!

 

I am sorry to see this type of division (and even hostility) between Christians, but I do believe this incident has probably sparked a lot of conversations within families. I know it has in mine. It has also sparked a lot of discussion about integrity and civility.

 

Personally, I am now even more excited to see and hear SWB and Dr. Wile. I need the motivation to teach 9th grade next year!

[Audrey]

So, whatever happened to warning against Atheists, Pagans, and various other non-Christians?

 

This is like cannibalism...or mothers eating their young. I can't tell which.

 

 

Well, those are the easier targets, I suppose. As it is, the parties in question are doing a finer job of tearing it up than any bunch of atheists, pagans and various other non-Christians could have done.

 

It's all :lurk5: to me.