Disappointed in MACHE-stance on Ham

[Daisy]

Are folks still thinking this is just about evolution/creation? Has anyone actually researched Enns' theological beliefs? This is NOT an evolution/creation issue. I've read 100+ pages of information at BioLogos, listened to Enns' lectures, and read his articles. I've listened to the audios from Ken Ham's seminar. This is about the authority of Scripture in many, many more areas than just Genesis 1-2.

 

I'm not in anyone's fan club. It is clear that Enns' has been called on the carpet by more than just Ken Ham. Dr. Al Mohler, Westminster Theological Seminary, and others have been concerned by this man's theology for a long time.

 

It is unfortunate that PHP decided to endorse this Bible curriculum. I hope they will reconsider their position.

 

I think all parties have behaved in a less than stellar fashion. Hopefully the truly aggrieved parties will resolve their conflict in private and the secondary parties will stop looking for their next adrenaline rush.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Daisy

[pdalley]

Are folks still thinking this is just about evolution/creation? Has anyone actually researched Enns' theological beliefs? This is NOT an evolution/creation issue. I've read 100+ pages of information at BioLogos, listened to Enns' lectures, and read his articles. I've listened to the audios from Ken Ham's seminar. This is about the authority of Scripture in many, many more areas than just Genesis 1-2.

 

I'm not in anyone's fan club. It is clear that Enns' has been called on the carpet by more than just Ken Ham. Dr. Al Mohler, Westminster Theological Seminary, and others have been concerned by this man's theology for a long time.

 

It is unfortunate that PHP decided to endorse this Bible curriculum. I hope they will reconsider their position.

 

I think all parties have behaved in a less than stellar fashion. Hopefully the truly aggrieved parties will resolve their conflict in private and the secondary parties will stop looking for their next adrenaline rush.

 

 

Firstly - This is not directed at you Daisy or anyone on this thread or this board.

 

 

I'm not seeing any issues with the sample of the Parent guide, The Instructors manual or anything I've read in the curriculum. I'm not seeing these 'issues'. I don't use a Bible curriculum per se so I wouldn't be in in the market for this but as I have said - my mother - who is extremely Biblically conservative - read and we discussed what we read of Dr. Enns' Curriculum. She couldn't find any 'heresy' either. So I'd like to know where it is. I keep hearing its there but I can't find it.

 

I more resent that someone thinks they need to be my spiritual adviser - like I do not know how to judge curriculum - as if I do not have a Pastor or religious counsel of my own.

 

I'm voicing my main objection to this whole mess. I do believe it is fully possible to disagree with someone theologically without coming across the way Dr Ham has to me. And I read Dr Ham's own words. I do not care for his way of presenting his differences or talking as if I'm not discerning enough to sift chaff from wheat.

[abreakfromlife]

Are folks still thinking this is just about evolution/creation? Has anyone actually researched Enns' theological beliefs? This is NOT an evolution/creation issue. I've read 100+ pages of information at BioLogos, listened to Enns' lectures, and read his articles. I've listened to the audios from Ken Ham's seminar. This is about the authority of Scripture in many, many more areas than just Genesis 1-2.

 

I'm not in anyone's fan club. It is clear that Enns' has been called on the carpet by more than just Ken Ham. Dr. Al Mohler, Westminster Theological Seminary, and others have been concerned by this man's theology for a long time.

 

It is unfortunate that PHP decided to endorse this Bible curriculum. I hope they will reconsider their position.

 

Another thing that I have not seen mentioned anywhere, not in Ken Ham's FB stuff, or anywhere ppl are attacking Peter Enns and BioLogos, is that Tim Keller is listed as a Leading Figure in the BioLogos section.

If Enns and BioLogos are so heretical and dangerous, where are the attacks on Keller? There aren't any because he is a highly respected theologian and pastor. Heck, I can't stand Reformed Theology and I really liked Reason for God :D So I just don't buy that Enns and Biologos are of the devil, if people aren't calling Tim Keller out. And not only have I not seen that (and I haven't gone looking for specific Keller-haters), but I continually see other respected pastors and theologians talking up Keller, because he is a great pastor/writer/theologian.

[J-rap]

***

Edited February 19, 2023 by J-rap

[Kirch]

Another thing that I have not seen mentioned anywhere, not in Ken Ham's FB stuff, or anywhere ppl are attacking Peter Enns and BioLogos, is that Tim Keller is listed as a Leading Figure in the BioLogos section.

If Enns and BioLogos are so heretical and dangerous, where are the attacks on Keller? There aren't any because he is a highly respected theologian and pastor. Heck, I can't stand Reformed Theology and I really liked Reason for God :D So I just don't buy that Enns and Biologos are of the devil, if people aren't calling Tim Keller out. And not only have I not seen that (and I haven't gone looking for specific Keller-haters), but I continually see other respected pastors and theologians talking up Keller, because he is a great pastor/writer/theologian.

 

Maybe it's not just Enns' acceptance of theistic evolution that's the issue (and therefore it's not just about Biologos). It sounds like (from the admittedly little I've read) the controversies about his theology are more pervasive than just the creation/evolution debate (i.e., the nature and authority of scripture, his stance on inerrancy/infallibility, etc.), whereas Keller is very orthodox, from what I understand.

[Matryoshka]

Maybe it's not just Enns' acceptance of theistic evolution that's the issue (and therefore it's not just about Biologos). It sounds like (from the admittedly little I've read) the controversies about his theology are more pervasive than just the creation/evolution debate (i.e., the nature and authority of scripture, his stance on inerrancy/infallibility, etc.), whereas Keller is very orthodox, from what I understand.

 

But there isn't just one universally accepted interpretation of Christian scripture - there hasn't been a lockstep interpretation of it since 1054. So what if Enns has a different interpretation of things than Ham? Whole swaths (possibly the majority) of the Christian world have different stances on these topics than Ham does. They're not allowed to speak or publish Bible curricula? There are plenty of Bible curricula out there for the ultra-literal already, I don't see why someone publishing something a bit more nuanced is so threatening.

 

You don't like it? Don't buy it. I totally disagree in pretty much every detail with AiG's science and theology, and I won't be buying their products, but I don't run around telling people they're wrong to buy it. Whatever floats your boat. Let other people float theirs.

[Jennefer@SSA]

:iagree: I just want a homeschooling conference. I don't want a christian worldview conference or parenting conference...just give me a solid homeschool conference that includes all kinds of christians and seculars and everything in-between and let's just talk about education!

:iagree: Yes! I have not attended my local conference in 3 years b/c it about everything but educating my kids. I am beyond thrilled that Susan herself will be speaking at our conference this year. I've already looked at the workshops and there is not one that strikes my fancy but I'll be at every one of Susan's talks with notebook in hand!!!

[Xuzi]

But there isn't just one universally accepted interpretation of Christian scripture - there hasn't been a lockstep interpretation of it since 1054. So what if Enns has a different interpretation of things than Ham? Whole swaths (possibly the majority) of the Christian world have different stances on these topics than Ham does. They're not allowed to speak or publish Bible curricula? There are plenty of Bible curricula out there for the ultra-literal already, I don't see why someone publishing something a bit more nuanced is so threatening.

 

You don't like it? Don't buy it. I totally disagree in pretty much every detail with AiG's science and theology, and I won't be buying their products, but I don't run around telling people they're wrong to buy it. Whatever floats your boat. Let other people float theirs.

 

:iagree:

[Mother Superior]

Are folks still thinking this is just about evolution/creation? Has anyone actually researched Enns' theological beliefs? This is NOT an evolution/creation issue. I've read 100+ pages of information at BioLogos, listened to Enns' lectures, and read his articles. I've listened to the audios from Ken Ham's seminar. This is about the authority of Scripture in many, many more areas than just Genesis 1-2.

 

I'm not in anyone's fan club. It is clear that Enns' has been called on the carpet by more than just Ken Ham. Dr. Al Mohler, Westminster Theological Seminary, and others have been concerned by this man's theology for a long time.

 

It is unfortunate that PHP decided to endorse this Bible curriculum. I hope they will reconsider their position.

 

I think all parties have behaved in a less than stellar fashion. Hopefully the truly aggrieved parties will resolve their conflict in private and the secondary parties will stop looking for their next adrenaline rush.

 

Have you read through the samples of Enns' curriculum??

 

Even if some don't like his theology, is that really justification for claiming he is dangerous and not Christian?

 

This seems like a witch hunt to me.

[Mother Superior]

But there isn't just one universally accepted interpretation of Christian scripture - there hasn't been a lockstep interpretation of it since 1054. So what if Enns has a different interpretation of things than Ham? Whole swaths (possibly the majority) of the Christian world have different stances on these topics than Ham does. They're not allowed to speak or publish Bible curricula? There are plenty of Bible curricula out there for the ultra-literal already, I don't see why someone publishing something a bit more nuanced is so threatening.

 

You don't like it? Don't buy it. I totally disagree in pretty much every detail with AiG's science and theology, and I won't be buying their products, but I don't run around telling people they're wrong to buy it. Whatever floats your boat. Let other people float theirs.

 

Exactly. :iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

Have you read through the samples of Enns' curriculum??

 

Even if some don't like his theology, is that really justification for claiming he is dangerous and not Christian?

 

This seems like a witch hunt to me.

 

:iagree:

[PeterPan]

Maybe it's not just Enns' acceptance of theistic evolution that's the issue (and therefore it's not just about Biologos). It sounds like (from the admittedly little I've read) the controversies about his theology are more pervasive than just the creation/evolution debate (i.e., the nature and authority of scripture, his stance on inerrancy/infallibility, etc.), whereas Keller is very orthodox, from what I understand.

 

I'm not sure how you're defining orthodox, but SWB has said she considers Enns orthodox. Googled Tim Keller and found his biologos profile, and he seems to be in the same vein. My guess is whatever people think of Enns is about what they'll conclude of this Keller as well. Time runs out to disagree with everyone, mercy. When Keller shows up at a homeschool convention with curriculum aimed at teaching Bible to littles, then maybe he'll draw some attention.

[Kirch]

But there isn't just one universally accepted interpretation of Christian scripture - there hasn't been a lockstep interpretation of it since 1054. So what if Enns has a different interpretation of things than Ham? Whole swaths (possibly the majority) of the Christian world have different stances on these topics than Ham does. They're not allowed to speak or publish Bible curricula? There are plenty of Bible curricula out there for the ultra-literal already, I don't see why someone publishing something a bit more nuanced is so threatening.

 

You don't like it? Don't buy it. I totally disagree in pretty much every detail with AiG's science and theology, and I won't be buying their products, but I don't run around telling people they're wrong to buy it. Whatever floats your boat. Let other people float theirs.

 

Oh, I know--I was just trying to offer an explanation of why Enns gets more flak in the theological community than Keller--trying to point out that I don't think it's just his theistic evolution ideas that people are taking issue with.

 

I agree with you that having a wider selection of views is a good thing, and I'm pretty conservative.

[Jen500]

 

It is unfortunate that PHP decided to endorse this Bible curriculum. I hope they will reconsider their position.

 

 

 

But why, really?

I have never read anywhere that PHP endorses any particular denomination of Christianity (or any religion?)

Aren't all the Christian denominations all....Christian? :confused:

[GWOB]

But there isn't just one universally accepted interpretation of Christian scripture - there hasn't been a lockstep interpretation of it since 1054. So what if Enns has a different interpretation of things than Ham? Whole swaths (possibly the majority) of the Christian world have different stances on these topics than Ham does. They're not allowed to speak or publish Bible curricula? There are plenty of Bible curricula out there for the ultra-literal already, I don't see why someone publishing something a bit more nuanced is so threatening.

 

You don't like it? Don't buy it. I totally disagree in pretty much every detail with AiG's science and theology, and I won't be buying their products, but I don't run around telling people they're wrong to buy it. Whatever floats your boat. Let other people float theirs.

 

:iagree:

Have you read through the samples of Enns' curriculum??

 

Even if some don't like his theology, is that really justification for claiming he is dangerous and not Christian?

 

This seems like a witch hunt to me.

 

:iagree:

 

Seriously, I love Jesus. For real. I don't give one good flying fig what some "respected theologin" says. I don't follow some random guy who claims he has the market cornered on Jesus. Sure, the Bible is the ultimate truth. Unfortunately, humans (who are quite stupid, honestly) are left to interpret the Bible, and we all get at least some of it wrong. I'm pretty sure God will grant us some slack because He knows how dumb we all are. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could just grant everyone else the grace (ahem) God grants us? And be tactful about it?

[Kirch]

I'm not sure how you're defining orthodox, but SWB has said she considers Enns orthodox. Googled Tim Keller and found his biologos profile, and he seems to be in the same vein. My guess is whatever people think of Enns is about what they'll conclude of this Keller as well. Time runs out to disagree with everyone, mercy. When Keller shows up at a homeschool convention with curriculum aimed at teaching Bible to littles, then maybe he'll draw some attention.

 

I don't know enough from the source about Enns' positions to know for myself, so I don't know if he really is orthodox or unorthodox (by my standards or anyone else's!). There's at least the perception that he's not orthodox by conservative standards, which unfortunately is more than enough of a spark to set a fire.

 

My guess is that much of it comes down to stances on the nature and authority of scripture. Tim Keller's approach to scripture is very conservative (inerrant/infallible, the inspired Word of God, authoritative in our lives, etc.); my beliefs line up nicely with his. I wasn't troubled by what I read of Enns' views on the nature of scripture in the sample from the parents' book of Telling God's Story, but I can see how some very conservative believers would be, especially if they were looking for "proof-text" type statements. There were some individual statements that might have troubled me if I hadn't understood them in the wider context. I enjoyed what I read of it--it really made me think. Enns' ideas on an "incarnational understanding" of scripture are intriguing and I haven't had time to process them enough to decide what I think in the end, but I know that many conservatives (especially the ultra-conservatives who I'm sure make up a large portion of AiG's supporters) would have issues with it, and that was just from a small, online sample of his work and beliefs.

 

ETA--Wanting to clarify again that I don't agree that Enns' shouldn't be published or that he's not a Christian, just trying to explain why some conservatives have issues with Enns and not Keller!

Edited March 29, 2011 by Kirch

[Mama Bear]

Just wanted to add that as much as I despair over the sweeping generalizations which so often accompany the wider conversation on topics such as these, two really great things have come from this particular situation. First, my children are using formal logic terms to break down multiple conversations every day. Not that they haven't already attempted this (and on a fairly successful, persistent, and annoying level), but we've had some amazing discussions lately and they're all focused and in rare form. Second, I'm awaiting delivery of Telling God's Story. I meant to order it, even had it on my list, but it fell to the end. Not anymore! (You'd have to be here, lately, to get just how big this is for me. Doesn't really help me feel like a grown-up... ;))

 

TYVM, and now I'll be scouting locations for my own regional "parent-teacher conference." :D

[tex-mex]

But there isn't just one universally accepted interpretation of Christian scripture - there hasn't been a lockstep interpretation of it since 1054. So what if Enns has a different interpretation of things than Ham? Whole swaths (possibly the majority) of the Christian world have different stances on these topics than Ham does. They're not allowed to speak or publish Bible curricula? There are plenty of Bible curricula out there for the ultra-literal already, I don't see why someone publishing something a bit more nuanced is so threatening.

 

You don't like it? Don't buy it. I totally disagree in pretty much every detail with AiG's science and theology, and I won't be buying their products, but I don't run around telling people they're wrong to buy it. Whatever floats your boat. Let other people float theirs.

 

:iagree:

 

Have you read through the samples of Enns' curriculum??

 

Even if some don't like his theology, is that really justification for claiming he is dangerous and not Christian?

 

This seems like a witch hunt to me.

:iagree::iagree:

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

:iagree:Cleveland

 

Chocolate, lattes, my most favorite TWTM friends...I'm there.:001_smile:

 

No, no, no! Not Cleveland! Then I wouldn't have an excuse to stay in a hotel by myself for 3 nights!!!!!

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

:iagree: I just want a homeschooling conference. I don't want a christian worldview conference or parenting conference...just give me a solid homeschool conference that includes all kinds of christians and seculars and everything in-between and let's just talk about education!

 

:iagree: Totally!

[FO4UR]

No, no, no! Not Cleveland! Then I wouldn't have an excuse to stay in a hotel by myself for 3 nights!!!!!

 

:lol:But, that means you are close enough that there is another TWTMer within a 60 mile radius...how refreshing!!! That's cause for celebration.:party:

 

We could carpool down to Columbus.:001_smile:

[unsinkable]

But why, really?

I have never read anywhere that PHP endorses any particular denomination of Christianity (or any religion?)

Aren't all the Christian denominations all....Christian? :confused:

 

No, not according to some Christians.

 

Some Christians have rules about who is truly a Christian and who isn't.

 

According to them, just because you say you are a Christian, it doesn't make it so.

[radiobrain]

No, not according to some Christians.

 

Some Christians have rules about who is truly a Christian and who isn't.

 

According to them, just because you say you are a Christian, it doesn't make it so.

 

I have to say that I have been so naive about this. I am so used to being the minority in everything that I do, and tolerating everyone else's opinions and ideas... that I really had no idea that this sort of mentality existed.

 

It makes me especially irritated, as I would defend ANY homeschooler, even if their methods/ideas I found absolutely offensive and wrong. Yet, those same people would throw me under a bus in a second. Nice.

 

I suppose I need to get out a little more...

[elegantlion]

I have to say that I have been so naive about this. I am so used to being the minority in everything that I do, and tolerating everyone else's opinions and ideas... that I really had no idea that this sort of mentality existed.

 

 

Unfortunately I realized this a while ago. :glare:

 

Here are my thoughts this morning.

 

I can't peer into your soul

To tell if He is there.

So many look around

And choose loudly to proclaim,

You're not a believer,

You're damaging God

I see it in your eye!

What they can not see

Is that Jesus weeps

A little everytime

We disagree.

Love your neighbor

As Yourself,

But don't walk their

Path for them.

They too, that

Person you don't believe,

Is part of His Creation.

He carries a drop of God.

Edited March 29, 2011 by elegantlion

[unsinkable]

I have to say that I have been so naive about this. I am so used to being the minority in everything that I do, and tolerating everyone else's opinions and ideas... that I really had no idea that this sort of mentality existed.

 

It makes me especially irritated, as I would defend ANY homeschooler, even if their methods/ideas I found absolutely offensive and wrong. Yet, those same people would throw me under a bus in a second. Nice.

 

I suppose I need to get out a little more...

 

Come out with me. I'm good for a laugh every once in a while! :lol:

 

:grouphug:

[unsinkable]

Unfortunately I realized this a while ago. :glare:

 

Here are my thoughts this morning.

 

I can't peer into your soul

To tell if He is there.

So many look around

And choose loudly to proclaim,

You're not a believer,

You're damaging God

I see it in your eye!

What they can not see

Is that Jesus weeps

A little everytime

We disagree.

Love your neighbor

As Yourself,

But don't walk their

Path for them.

They too, that

Person you don't believe,

Is part of His Creation.

He carries a drop of God.

 

We are one Body.

[H.S. Burrow]

I have to say that I have been so naive about this. I am so used to being the minority in everything that I do, and tolerating everyone else's opinions and ideas... that I really had no idea that this sort of mentality existed.

 

It makes me especially irritated, as I would defend ANY homeschooler, even if their methods/ideas I found absolutely offensive and wrong. Yet, those same people would throw me under a bus in a second. Nice.

 

I suppose I need to get out a little more...

 

 

I won't throw you under a bus!

[Donna T.]

:iagree: I just want a homeschooling conference. I don't want a christian worldview conference or parenting conference...just give me a solid homeschool conference that includes all kinds of christians and seculars and everything in-between and let's just talk about education!

 

That's why I haven't attended our state convention in several years. The last few that we attended offered practically nothing to help us with our specific needs; i.e., my son runs when he sees a pencil, how can I make writing more enjoyable for him?, etc. I am a conservative Christian, and I am not opposed to workshops on worldview, family dynamics, etc. I know that is a big motivator for many homeschoolers, and those issues are important to our family, also. But, the conferences in our area are almost entirely focused on world view issues and on patriarchy. I come home and literally have nightmares :blink:.

 

I still don't even know what Ken Ham said or did!! I have read most of this thread & searched for info. but can't find it. We have loved Ken Ham since we first heard him speak many years ago. I have always thought he was a kind gentlemen. In the last few years, he has become associated with people whom he wasn't previously associated with. He is beginning to speak with speakers that he didn't previously schedule events with. I have seen the ads and my stomach feels ill.

 

For the record, there are :seeya: conservative (I am speaking theologically), fundamental, Bible believing, "born again" Christians who aren't involved or interested in excessive rhetoric. We aren't homeschooling so God can raise our kids up and put them in an "army". We don't attend conferences to get our religion or politics or to have a pep rally. Just wanted to say that...

[TracyP]

But there isn't just one universally accepted interpretation of Christian scripture - there hasn't been a lockstep interpretation of it since 1054. So what if Enns has a different interpretation of things than Ham? Whole swaths (possibly the majority) of the Christian world have different stances on these topics than Ham does. They're not allowed to speak or publish Bible curricula? There are plenty of Bible curricula out there for the ultra-literal already, I don't see why someone publishing something a bit more nuanced is so threatening.

 

You don't like it? Don't buy it. I totally disagree in pretty much every detail with AiG's science and theology, and I won't be buying their products, but I don't run around telling people they're wrong to buy it. Whatever floats your boat. Let other people float theirs.

 

:iagree:

[H.S. Burrow]

Unfortunately I realized this a while ago. :glare:

 

Here are my thoughts this morning.

 

I can't peer into your soul

To tell if He is there.

So many look around

And choose loudly to proclaim,

You're not a believer,

You're damaging God

I see it in your eye!

What they can not see

Is that Jesus weeps

A little everytime

We disagree.

Love your neighbor

As Yourself,

But don't walk their

Path for them.

They too, that

Person you don't believe,

Is part of His Creation.

He carries a drop of God.

 

Well said.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

But there isn't just one universally accepted interpretation of Christian scripture - there hasn't been a lockstep interpretation of it since 1054. So what if Enns has a different interpretation of things than Ham? Whole swaths (possibly the majority) of the Christian world have different stances on these topics than Ham does. They're not allowed to speak or publish Bible curricula? There are plenty of Bible curricula out there for the ultra-literal already, I don't see why someone publishing something a bit more nuanced is so threatening.

 

You don't like it? Don't buy it. I totally disagree in pretty much every detail with AiG's science and theology, and I won't be buying their products, but I don't run around telling people they're wrong to buy it. Whatever floats your boat. Let other people float theirs.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

[pdalley]

Unfortunately I realized this a while ago. :glare:

 

Here are my thoughts this morning.

 

I can't peer into your soul

To tell if He is there.

So many look around

And choose loudly to proclaim,

You're not a believer,

You're damaging God

I see it in your eye!

What they can not see

Is that Jesus weeps

A little everytime

We disagree.

Love your neighbor

As Yourself,

But don't walk their

Path for them.

They too, that

Person you don't believe,

Is part of His Creation.

He carries a drop of God.

 

I love this. Well said. Very well said.

[LauraKay28]

:iagree: I just want a homeschooling conference. I don't want a christian worldview conference or parenting conference...just give me a solid homeschool conference that includes all kinds of christians and seculars and everything in-between and let's just talk about education!

 

:iagree:

[abreakfromlife]

 

Oh, I know--I was just trying to offer an explanation of why Enns gets more flak in the theological community than Keller--trying to point out that I don't think it's just his theistic evolution ideas that people are taking issue with.

I think you're probably right, but KH isn't limiting his denunciation to just Enns....if that was it, then SWB and Stonestreet (whoever he is) wouldn't be linked in, or Biologos as a whole wouldn't be condemned as heretical. If KH wants to make a big deal about the whole thing, then at least be logical and attack everyone attached equally. Of course then he'd be in over his head, and I think he knows that. I just think that's a shame that some people are being singled out.

[Kirch]

I think you're probably right, but KH isn't limiting his denunciation to just Enns....if that was it, then SWB and Stonestreet (whoever he is) wouldn't be linked in, or Biologos as a whole wouldn't be condemned as heretical. If KH wants to make a big deal about the whole thing, then at least be logical and attack everyone attached equally. Of course then he'd be in over his head, and I think he knows that. I just think that's a shame that some people are being singled out.

 

:iagree: Since a literal interpretation of Genesis is so central for Ham (and based on what I've heard/read from him), I'm pretty sure *he* considers theistic evolution as heretical, even if other conservative, YE supporters don't. I'm sure it's probably the fact that Enns has published a Bible curric for kids (which he would see as a clear and present danger) that has Ham personally calling him out (and SWB by association, since PHP published his book) and not others involved in Biologos. Like you said, he'd be in over his head!

[abreakfromlife]

I'm sure it's probably the fact that Enns has published a Bible curric for kids (which he would see as a clear and present danger) that has Ham personally calling him out (and SWB by association, since PHP published his book)

Yeah, true. I wonder how many people on his fb wall know about Keller's association with it. I'm curious now....is there no other christian curriculum that teaches evolution? If not, that's surprising. Although maybe it shouldn't be, since this is the reception you'd get, LOL.

 

I was talking to a dear friend of mine and complaining about how hard it is for people who are just looking for an education conference and how it shouldn't have to be a christian conference, it should be a homeschool conference, and she was like 'then they should go start one'. :tongue_smilie: It's not quite that easy, lol, but then you have these conventions that are trying to at least be somewhat in the middle and trying to appeal to other homeschoolers, and then this sort of stuff happens...so you can't win! I've actually joined a secular homeschool group in my area that says they are inclusive to everyone, just to try and get some other outlet than just christian ones. I don't know why it's so hard to not just be about education as a human being, no matter what you believe.

[*anj*]

And as we all know, there are many who hold SWB and anything she touches as suspect, because her history curriculum is *s*e*c*u*l*a*r*!

[*anj*]

Yeah, true. I wonder how many people on his fb wall know about Keller's association with it.

 

I think that Keller's association is minimal, if it exists at all. I know that they listed him as one whose ideas are similar to theirs, but I don't think that's what Keller is saying at all. They linked to a white paper that he wrote on the subject. In it, he says "In summary, it looks like a responsible way of reading the text is to interpret Genesis 2-3 as the account of an historical event that really happened."

 

There is a lot more to the article, but Keller certainly doesn't sound like Enns here. In fact it seems to me that Keller is stating the implications of Enns's position (without naming Enns).

[abreakfromlife]

huh.....that's interesting. and weird that they'd do that if that's not the case. Not that I really care either way, LOL....just thought it was interesting he was on there.

[Impish]

I seriously thought this thread was about Ham. Ya know, pork.

 

Apparently, I've been offline for too long...:blushing:

[*anj*]

huh.....that's interesting. and weird that they'd do that if that's not the case. Not that I really care either way, LOL....just thought it was interesting he was on there.

 

I hear you. ;)

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

:lol:But, that means you are close enough that there is another TWTMer within a 60 mile radius...how refreshing!!! That's cause for celebration.:party:

 

We could carpool down to Columbus.:001_smile:

 

:auto: Sounds like a great plan!

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe it's not just Enns' acceptance of theistic evolution that's the issue (and therefore it's not just about Biologos). It sounds like (from the admittedly little I've read) the controversies about his theology are more pervasive than just the creation/evolution debate (i.e., the nature and authority of scripture, his stance on inerrancy/infallibility, etc.), whereas Keller is very orthodox, from what I understand.

 

I do not believe in infallibility I would not use any curriculem or allow my child to attend any program that taught it. (I would use some creation materials)

Edited March 29, 2011 by Sis

[PeterPan]

I don't know enough from the source about Enns' positions to know for myself, so I don't know if he really is orthodox or unorthodox (by my standards or anyone else's!). There's at least the perception that he's not orthodox by conservative standards, which unfortunately is more than enough of a spark to set a fire.

 

My guess is that much of it comes down to stances on the nature and authority of scripture. Tim Keller's approach to scripture is very conservative (inerrant/infallible, the inspired Word of God, authoritative in our lives, etc.); my beliefs line up nicely with his. I wasn't troubled by what I read of Enns' views on the nature of scripture in the sample from the parents' book of Telling God's Story, but I can see how some very conservative believers would be, especially if they were looking for "proof-text" type statements. There were some individual statements that might have troubled me if I hadn't understood them in the wider context. I enjoyed what I read of it--it really made me think. Enns' ideas on an "incarnational understanding" of scripture are intriguing and I haven't had time to process them enough to decide what I think in the end, but I know that many conservatives (especially the ultra-conservatives who I'm sure make up a large portion of AiG's supporters) would have issues with it, and that was just from a small, online sample of his work and beliefs.

 

ETA--Wanting to clarify again that I don't agree that Enns' shouldn't be published or that he's not a Christian, just trying to explain why some conservatives have issues with Enns and not Keller!

 

Kirch, I was thinking about this last night, and I think there are people who end up accepting theistic evolution (or other ideas and interpretations) sort of blithely or naively. They don't have time (or extreme interest) to sort through the issues and get there rather by default; it's what they were taught or heard or what makes sense to them, done. These are people who didn't change any other bit of their interpretation of scripture to get there, and there could even be some logical incongruities if they thought about it long enough. But there are other people, theologians, scientists, people who DO sit around thinking about these things to great lengths and trying to wrestle with the issues, nuances, words and terms. These people are very specific in what they're saying and meaning, and they HAVE thought through the logical ends. So I think we as laypeople, people not crazy into this stuff, can MISS some of the nuances that the more versed people are communicating. For instance, listen to this youtube clip from Enns

and sort out for yourself. Look at what he's actually saying, and also look at the *thought process* that gets him there. Where is he going with this, how does his view on xyz or his method of getting there allow him to take the next step? I mean judge for yourself. I see no difference in thought process between what I'm reading of Keller's goals (as stated in his bio on the biologos website) and Enns.

[PeterPan]

:iagree: Since a literal interpretation of Genesis is so central for Ham (and based on what I've heard/read from him), I'm pretty sure *he* considers theistic evolution as heretical, even if other conservative, YE supporters don't. I'm sure it's probably the fact that Enns has published a Bible curric for kids (which he would see as a clear and present danger) that has Ham personally calling him out (and SWB by association, since PHP published his book) and not others involved in Biologos. Like you said, he'd be in over his head!

 

Actually, it's just the opposite. KH has been speaking out against biologos for some time. He started speaking on Enns when he found out Enns would be at the same convention vending Bible curriculum. And it's not that he calls them heretical. That's a very specific term. What he points out is the logical ends. And that's what I was telling you. The whole deal with Biologos is to sort through the logic of this stuff and smooth it out. Most people never get that far in their thinking and live with logical incongruities, never grappling with what it *really* means for their view of Jesus, sin, and salvation if death occurred before the Fall. They haven't thought through that. But the people at Biologos have. That's what theologians do, sitting around nitpicking words and thinking through specific meanings and implications. So you have to take the time to think through the THOUGHT PROCESS with Enns and Biologos and see if that's really what you agree with.

[pdalley]

Kirch, I was thinking about this last night, and I think there are people who end up accepting theistic evolution (or other ideas and interpretations) sort of blithely or naively. They don't have time (or extreme interest) to sort through the issues and get there rather by default; it's what they were taught or heard or what makes sense to them, done. These are people who didn't change any other bit of their interpretation of scripture to get there, and there could even be some logical incongruities if they thought about it long enough. But there are other people, theologians, scientists, people who DO sit around thinking about these things to great lengths and trying to wrestle with the issues, nuances, words and terms. These people are very specific in what they're saying and meaning, and they HAVE thought through the logical ends. So I think we as laypeople, people not crazy into this stuff, can MISS some of the nuances that the more versed people are communicating. For instance, listen to this youtube clip from Enns

and sort out for yourself. Look at what he's actually saying, and also look at the *thought process* that gets him there. Where is he going with this, how does his view on xyz or his method of getting there allow him to take the next step? I mean judge for yourself. I see no difference in thought process between what I'm reading of Keller's goals (as stated in his bio on the biologos website) and Enns.

 

I'd really love a point by point discussion or link to one that shows how Enns' Bible Curriculum is such a problem that is based on someone actually reading it. I've read through the samples and Instructors Guide and am not seeing it. There is no denial of the Deity of Christ or the innerency of scripture in what I have read in this curriculum.

 

And are not all Christians indwelt with the Holy Spirit? The Spirit gives us all different gifts. Surely these theologians are not the only ones gifted with discernment. And if I should only listen to these regarding scripture and curriculum and the ulterior motives of publisher then where does my Pastor enter into it?

 

I'm not being snarky. I truly want to understand why I should take the word of one theologian over another and why I just wouldn't pray about it and ask God to tell me His will for me and mine instead.

Edited March 29, 2011 by pdalley

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have not accepted theistic evolution "blithely or naively" and find that a bit offensive IMHO. Many Christians and theologians believe in God the creator and evolution as well. It is not some crazy idea and is well thought out IMHO.

[*anj*]

I'm not sure how you're defining orthodox, but SWB has said she considers Enns orthodox. Googled Tim Keller and found his biologos profile, and he seems to be in the same vein. My guess is whatever people think of Enns is about what they'll conclude of this Keller as well. Time runs out to disagree with everyone, mercy. When Keller shows up at a homeschool convention with curriculum aimed at teaching Bible to littles, then maybe he'll draw some attention.

 

From my understanding, people who are really familiar with Enns's work (all of his work), find his New Testament writings/perspective to be fairly orthodox.

 

I have a close friend who took several of Enns's classes while he was teaching at Westminster. Based upon the way that he presented himself at that time, she felt that his New Testament writings were orthodox, although he was headed into murky water regarding the Old Testament.

 

After doing some research recently, she thinks that while she might consider using his elementary school-level materials on the New Testament, as a conservative Christian she would not recommend the middle or high school materials, because she thinks that he'll be pushing an unorthodox agenda.

 

As for Keller, as long as he holds to the historic Adam and Eve and the fall, then he is within the bounds of orthodoxy whether he holds to some type of theistic evolution or not. The problem with Enns is that he doesn't appear to hold to a historic fall and then looks at Paul's words as if he didn't know what he was talking about (Paul didn't know about evolution and therefore took a symbolic story about Israel as being true). He wants to keep what Paul says about Christ while denying the historicity of Paul's metaphor.

 

The difference between Peter Enns and Keller is that if Keller abandoned the confession by abandoning the federal headship of Adam (and therefore the federal headship of Christ as he notes), he'd be kicked out of the PCA (after a very public trial). We would have heard about it. Enns is not a Teaching Elder in a PCA church or any church for that matter and he's no longer affiliated with any school. He can abandon the confession without any official consequence.

[Mrs Mungo]

Actually, it's just the opposite. KH has been speaking out against biologos for some time. He started speaking on Enns when he found out Enns would be at the same convention vending Bible curriculum. And it's not that he calls them heretical. That's a very specific term. What he points out is the logical ends. And that's what I was telling you. The whole deal with Biologos is to sort through the logic of this stuff and smooth it out. Most people never get that far in their thinking and live with logical incongruities, never grappling with what it *really* means for their view of Jesus, sin, and salvation if death occurred before the Fall. They haven't thought through that. But the people at Biologos have. That's what theologians do, sitting around nitpicking words and thinking through specific meanings and implications. So you have to take the time to think through the THOUGHT PROCESS with Enns and Biologos and see if that's really what you agree with.

 

PLENTY of people have grappled with it. Copernicus grappled with the geocentric model of the solar system and found it to be wrong. He was labeled a heretic. Many people now grapple with, study and believe that the 7 day creation model is wrong. What does it mean to me if there was animal death before the fall? Nothing, because I don't believe that animals have souls.

 

I agree with Priscilla that it's offensive to presume that those who do not believe in a 7 day creation haven't studied it. There are entire fields of study on this and most of the people involved in them are NOT theologians.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Xuzi]

I have not accepted theistic evolution "blithely or naively" and find that a bit offensive IMHO. Many Christians and theologians believe in God the creator and evolution as well. It is not some crazy idea and is well thought out IMHO.

I agree. People look at the same pile of evidence and come up with different conclusions all. the. time. It's why there's more than one person in a jury.