Enns and sin (according to Ham) -- CC

[Janie Grace]

My curiosity was piqued by the thread about Ham/Enns/Wile/SWB and I have been checking out Enns' Telling God's Story. It looks great, and his theological background is very similar to my own. I am wondering about a comment Ken Hamm made in his recent article about getting uninvited from the conventions. He said that Enns does not believe in talking to children about the concept of sin. Is this true? I believe in explaining the gospel (ie, the heart of the Christian faith) to children as early as they can begin to understand it, and mankind's sinful condition is a part of that.

 

Can someone explain Hamm's comment?

Edited March 23, 2011 by Janie Grace
Correcting spelling of Hamm's name... wish I could do so in the title! Can you tell I'm not a big Hamm follower?

[Janie Grace]

Here is the comment from Hamm's article:

 

We will be providing a detailed critique of the Bible curriculum in the near future. For the moment, you should be aware that Dr. Enns makes it clear that sin should not be discussed with young children because it will cause problems with their view of God.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Janie Grace
ditto

[imhim]

I do not know who Dr. Enn? is, but if you have a good understanding of the Bible, and obey it yourself, then you need to teach the children what it says: Ephesians 6:1, Children, obey you parents in the Lord for this is right.

Disobedience is sin.

 

Now, I am not saying you need to lecture your 2 yo, but we find many references in the Bible about how parents need to teach their children to obey, to teach them right from wrong. Solomon wrote many of his proverbs to his son, teaching him what is sin, and what is not.

 

I do not know what Dr. Enn is talking about, but I would not worry about it - we have the Bible, the ultimate manual of raising children.

[Janie Grace]

I do not know who Dr. Enn? is, but if you have a good understanding of the Bible, and obey it yourself, then you need to teach the children what it says: Ephesians 6:1, Children, obey you parents in the Lord for this is right.

Disobedience is sin.

 

Now, I am not saying you need to lecture your 2 yo, but we find many references in the Bible about how parents need to teach their children to obey, to teach them right from wrong. Solomon wrote many of his proverbs to his son, teaching him what is sin, and what is not.

 

I do not know what Dr. Enn is talking about, but I would not worry about it - we have the Bible, the ultimate manual of raising children.

 

Peter Enns is the author of a Bible curriculum that is sold by SWB's Peace Hill Press. http://www.welltrainedmind.com/store/religion-curriculum.html

 

I'm not "worried" about anything and I know that I will continue to teach my children the Bible. I am just interested in knowing the basis of this observation of Hamm's -- because if it were true, it would decrease my interest in using Enns' materials.

[abbeyej]

That's a pretty intentional misreading. Sigh.

 

For very young children (grammar stage), he says that the emphasis should be on knowing and loving the "full portrait of Jesus", not "the child's miserable state of sin".

 

He follows this immediately with:

Please do not misunderstand me. I believe that Jesus rescues us from our sin. But we cannot and should not expect adult comprehension of the depth of sin...

 

I would have to type out large portions of the chapter to do it true justice, and I feel I should ask permission before doing so much. But let me assure you that his approach is not to avoid the topic of sin -- but simply to introduce the very youngest children to *Jesus* *first*.

 

Okay, here, I can't help myself. Another paragraph:

Fuller lessons concerning sin and grace will come in time, and certainly parents and churches have the responsibility to teach the fullness of what the Bible has to offer. But most young children simply do not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to grasp the adult concepts in the Bible. Children need to be approached as children, and Jesus approached the children by blessing them, praying for them, and reassuring them of his love for them. There will be plenty of time as your child begins to mature to discuss the biblical story as a whole and lay out the entire dysfunctional human drama -- at a time when your child can begin to grasp its implications.

[chicagoshannon]

I think that a big part of being a Christian is understanding that Jesus died for our sins. So you have to explain sin to kids or you won't be able to tell them about Jesus' purpose.

 

I have no idea what Enns says as I haven't read his books.

[boscopup]

What should not be emphasized is the child's miserable state of sin and the need for a savior.

 

 

Interesting. I don't believe my children are in a state of sin anyway. They're children. The sins of the father are not passed down to the son. I don't believe in the concept of "Original Sin".

 

So given that, I teach my kids about sin, but don't expect them to obey the gospel until they're older - at least logic stage. We go straight through the Bible, learning the major stories that are child-appropriate. In Bible class at church, the first thing they learn is God created the earth (in 6 days ;)), and a lot of emphasis is put on God and his wonderful creation. When they get to the NT, they learn about Jesus and how special He is, the miracles He did, etc. In my youngest son's class (18 month - 2 year olds), they just learn that Jesus went up to heaven. They don't learn about the crucifixion at that point. They do learn about it in the 3-4 year old class, and each time they move up in class, they learn more depth. I really like how the classes are done. The kids are learning a LOT of stuff, including the important thing about the OT - the people were repeatedly disobeying God, and they repeatedly were punished for it. We need to learn from them and obey God.

 

I have no opinion on the Enns curriculum issue, as I haven't looked at it. I am disgusted with Ham's behavior lately. While I agree that theistic evolution can have consequences, I don't see any reason to be hounding on Enns, and especially on SWB, at a convention. If I'd been at a lecture of his and he said something about SWB, I would have walked out. Of course, I was probably at the SWB lectures when he was speaking. :D

[Janie Grace]

Thanks, everyone. That was very helpful and his approach makes sense to me. I like what he says about how Jesus approached children (although we don't have many accounts of this kind of interaction and to argue from silence on this matter could lead one to the conclusion that Jesus also didn't talk to, say, disabled people about sin). But I get his point and given his orthodoxy (lowercase O), I have no doubt that he will cover sin and how it relates to Jesus later in the series.

 

I am not "scared off" by Hamm's comments; in fact, they commend Enns to me somewhat. ;)

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

I would call that a misrepresentation of what Peter Enns says.

 

I picked up Telling God's Story at the convention this weekend and started reading it this afternoon.

 

He suggests that young children be introduced to Jesus--his parables, his miracles, his love, etc.--without parents feeling the pressure of explaining every bit of biblical teaching into their young minds.

 

I'll quote some of what Ken Ham is probably referencing:

 

Jesus is described in full color in the Gospels. He weeps, laughs, becomes angry, has compassion, loves, has determination, prefers times of isolation, grows tired. In early grades, we should focus on bringing out this full portrait of Jesus. What should not be emphasized is the child's miserable state of sin and the need for a savior.

 

Please do not misunderstand me. I believe Jesus rescues us from our sin. But we cannot and should not expect adult comprehension of the depth of sin and the grace of God from our children. As parents, we can be so concerned that our very young children make a "profession of faith" that, without wanting in any way to harm the child, we wind up manipulating the child rather than teaching. . . .

 

Fuller lessons concerning sin and grace will come in time, and certainly parents and churches have the responsibility to teach the fullness of what the Bible has to offer. But most young children simply do not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to graps the adult concepts in the Bible. . . .

 

I believe in God's displeasure with sin. But to introduce children to the God of wrath right at the beginning of their lives, without the requisite biblical foundation and before the years of emotional maturity, can actually distort their view of God.

 

pp. 33-34

 

Hope this helps.

 

Linda ~ who hopes she isn't violating any copyright laws here

 

Well, it was helpful to me. Thank-you. :)

[purplejackmama]

Thank you all this post and for sharing parts of the curriculum with us. I too have been struggling with whether or not these books are fit for my family. (I really, really, really want them be :-)

 

I saw the bruhaha on here about the recent verbal jabs, but did not know what to take as fact and what to blow off as opinion.

 

I had not talked to anyone who has actually seen/read the book so I am happy to get a report from someone who has.

 

Thanks for sharing!!

[PeterPan]

Thanks, everyone. That was very helpful and his approach makes sense to me. I like what he says about how Jesus approached children (although we don't have many accounts of this kind of interaction and to argue from silence on this matter could lead one to the conclusion that Jesus also didn't talk to, say, disabled people about sin). But I get his point and given his orthodoxy (lowercase O), I have no doubt that he will cover sin and how it relates to Jesus later in the series.

 

I am not "scared off" by Hamm's comments; in fact, they commend Enns to me somewhat. ;)

 

Janie, there is quite a bit of disagreement about Enns' viewpoints and teachings and for an alternate viewpoint you might like to read the open letter Grudem (a well-known modern theologian and author of a very popular Systematic Theology text) wrote concerning Enns. People need to read both sides and sort it out for themselves.

[Tree House Academy]

I can now see why this has become such a debacle. It is the age old belief issue - who is right, who is wrong, and who is going to just take their ball and go home. To be honest, I avoided organized religion for a long time for this very reason. I do not understand why two grown men who claim to be preaching for God's glory must argue on the small details. I have no idea why Ken Ham can't just allow others to believe and teach as they wish without criticism. Even the apostle Paul talks about Christians preaching the message for the wrong reasons. He goes on to say that he doesn't care WHY they are doing it...he is just happy that the word is being spread and more people are coming to Christ.

 

So, whether you decide to tell your kids about Jesus dying for our sins when they are 5 or when they are 15, the fact that you will one day tell the good news is what God cares about!

 

Lord help us.

[mcconnellboys]

And I would agree with this completely and say that I followed this model, myself. Don't most people? I've never heard of any parent hammering toddlers or even lower elementary children with how sinful they are; how sinful the world is, etc. You'd give them a psychological disorder if you did that, LOL! That would be emotional abuse. Most world cultures establish an "age of understanding" or "age of reason" for a reason.

 

Enns never says don't mention sin to your children at all. He says don't dwell on it at a young age and make them see the world as the miserable place it is. They will have a lifetime to try to come to terms with suffering and their own imperfection.....

[Sue G in PA]

I think that a big part of being a Christian is understanding that Jesus died for our sins. So you have to explain sin to kids or you won't be able to tell them about Jesus' purpose.

 

I have no idea what Enns says as I haven't read his books.

 

:iagree: And, again, I have not read his book neither am I familiar with his teachings. I am only going by what I have read in this post and others. It is my belief that you CANNOT teach a child about Jesus without also teaching them about their sin. To do that is to minimize exactly what Jesus came here to do (and who He is) and equate Him with just any other good and decent person! He came to die for our sins! This is just my opinion and I'm not making any sort of character judgement or Dr. Enns or anyone else. I don't know when a child is old enough to be held accountable for his or her acceptance or rejection of Christ but I think it is probably younger than we like to think. I cannot even fathom waiting until my children are "older" (and how old?) to tell them of the immense and unmeasurable love that Jesus has for them that He would CHOOSE to die to save them from the consequences of their sin. Make sense? Clear as mud? :D I'm off to become a bit more informed about Dr. Enns teachings as to not insert my foot accidentally in my mouth. :)

[mcconnellboys]

Do you have a link for this, please?

[PeterPan]

Regena, were you asking about the Grudem letter or something else?

 

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/wayne-grudems-letter-regarding-pete-enns/

 

Again, just something for people to read and sort through for themselves.