I agree! I spoke out of haste. I actually know some vendors there, and you are right, it is not their fault!
Wow. I'm, well, stunned. I don't know what to think. I do not know much about Dr. Enns, so i'd have to see what he teaches that KH feels is wrong. BUT, I've also seen KH several times, and so much of what he says rings sooooo true with me. Interesting about all the stuff with SWB. I have so many friends who are so into her. I have to review that more, I know many who would be curious about how she falls in all of this. I agree with not boycotting the convention if there are good, reputable, reliable companies that are going to be there. It is not their fault. Now... I'm just
OK. I looked up Dr. Enns. I had never heard of him before. He's connected with an organization called BioLogos. And from what I've read of them (on their web, not what anyone else has to say about them!) From what I can understand through all the scientific mumbo-jumbo is that they believe that God created through evolution. I feel that by allowing him to speak, his views are being endorsed by the people organizing the convention. There is no way I would be able to attend under those circumstances. It just reinforces to me my gut-reaction to the conference in general.
I'm curious about the "Jesus erred" comment I've heard a few people make. Would someone mind elaborating? (Links are fine, btw, if you feel safer linking than paraphrasing... just really curious)
Where is the link that talks about boycotting the vendors? I'm not sure what that's about, and am curious. You know, the more I read from the BioLobos website AND what Ken Ham has to say, the more I feel Ham did the right thing in pointing out any error.
I am saddened by this. I was at the convention in Greenville. DH & I tried to get to one of Dr. Ham's seminars and it was standing room only. The Answers booth was always swamped with people. I don't know what to make of all of this, but it seemed to me that he was one speaker that was very popular. I attended one of Jay Wiles' seminars, which was good. He and John Stonestreet pretty much made up the teen track - we parents wanted to see what they were advocating. I attended one of Susan Wise Bauer's seminars. While it was okay, I wish I could have attended Dr. Ham's instead. JMHO.
So is it the "mega" conventions that kicked him out? I'm just curious b/c the only one I have the opportunity to attend this year is a mega convention. I'm actually REALLY upset that they've come in an destroyed a very amazing smaller convention system here in our area. We used to have an amazing convention - but this one coming into our area has just obliterated it. Makes me VERY sad. Sigh. BTW...read the stuff on BioLogos. Wow. I'm glad Ken Hamm said something. That just doesn't sit well with me AT ALL.
I just viewed some one Dr. Enns talk as noted by Dr. Ham on his blog. I think Dr. Ham spoke out appropriately.
Same here. Our small, local convention has moved out of Columbus to northeast Ohio, to be on the opposite side of the state from the Cincinnatti one. But most people I know of in central Ohio feel that, if they're going to go to one, they'd rather go to the "big" Cincinnatti one and get "more" for their money. But the goal is to MAKE LOTS OF MONEY, not to encourage and support homeschooling. The people who run the smaller one are homeschoolers, not professionals. While they do bring in key-note speakers, the majority of presenters in the small groups homeschoolers, who are "there" day in and day out. I don't think the smaller one will last very long.
I'm confused. Does the convention only allow conservative Christian publishers/speakers? Or Christian-only publishers/speakers?
I don't think so. I don't consider SWB a conservative Christian. And from what I've read by Dr. Enns, I wouldn't consider him a conservative Christian.
I'm sure I'm not going to win any brownie points with what I'm about to say. Which is fine since we are all allowed to have our own opinions, and you are certainly allowed to disagree with me. I don't know anything about Dr Enns or SWB other than what I've read. I wouldn't consider either of them as an educator/curriculum writer I'd be remotely interested in. I have NO issues with what Ken Ham said about either of these individuals and he was right in pointing out doctrinal error. HOWEVER, I have big issues with HOW he did it. From what I've read, this convention had the policy that stated no one could directly name another individuals/presenter's name. It appears that the convention in Greenville did not share this same policy and therefor didn't have any issues with Ken Ham naming names. If he was unwilling to abide by the policy then he should have refrained from speaking at this convention especially since he knew Enns and the others would be there as well. In my opinion, he dishonored his word by not voluntarily withdrawing since he already knew he would not be abiding by the board's policy. His testimony would have been far stronger. The convention board was within their right to uninvite Mr Ham since they were aware that he wouldn't abide by their policy. They chose to do this quietly and discreetly. Unfortunately they made a bad decision to use email. Mr Ham chose to go public on FB. You can point out someone's error, taking it point by point to the unth degree. But making a big public splash ends up leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth. In my opinion, how Ken Ham handled this was dead wrong. And it has left a bad taste in my mouth. Marty
From what I read, he told them up-front that he would not agree to the policy. So he didn't dishonor his word. I don't know if what he did was right, wrong, or other, so please don't think I'm defending him. But at least he was up front about what he would or would not do.
That was my understanding, too, and was told he wouldn't have to compromise in that way. I also understand that AiG tried to work it out with the company before it "hit the fan", and the convention people didn't respond.
Well from their site: <<AN IMPORTANT NOTE While are Christians – gratefully and unapologetically so – and whereas this helps to guide how we structure the convention, we do not require that an attendee, speaker or exhibitor “affirm” their agreement to our own Statement of Faith. Neither do we require that you PAY to join our organization (we don’t have one) or any other organization in order to receive a discounted admission to the convention. Further, if you elect to PAY to join a homeschooling-related group of some sort that you saw at our convention – - – we do NOT receive commissions on your membership fees. Similarly – - – whereas we may not schedule a speaker or approve an exhibitor that is specifically “anti-Christian” – - – we do have Speakers and Exhibitors that are not specifically “Christian” but that DO provide knowledge, information and/or curriculum that is applicable and valuable for homeschoolers, both Christian and non-Christian alike. Accordingly, you should note that we do not necessarily endorse everything you may find in the Exhibit Hall or that you may hear in a Seminar or Workshop session. Because this is an education forum, we do not propose to “filter” everything–allowing you to see or hear only what “we” have approved. We believe that you, as parent educators, are very capable of judging and making intelligent decisions for yourself and for your family. Our conventions are designed to help a broad spectrum of homeschoolers and people considering homeschooling. They are not, however, denominational meetings to formulate unity of belief and practice.>>
Great Homeschool Conventions now has a response to Ken Ham Speaking engagements cancelled on their site: http://www.cincinnatihomeschoolconv...ds/2011/03/Ken-Ham-Issue-Public-Statement.pdf
I should have used the word "testimony" instead of "word". I was using "word" in the sense of Christian testimony. And yes I do think he dishonored his testimony. If he knew their policy and knew he would not abide by it ahead of time, he should have been honest and straightforward and withdrew. It would have been the honest thing to do to say,"I'm sorry but I can't in good conscience speak at this convention unless I free to say exactly what I want to say. It would be best if I withdrew." He didn't want to work anything out until after he went on FB. I wouldn't have responded either. That would have only have escalated this bad situation further. I realize that my opinion isn't worth a whole lot. But I believe HOW we stand on principle is just as important WHAT principle we stand on. Sorry, I think Ken Ham was wrong in how he went about things, even if what he said was correct. The op asked what we thought of this situation. That's what I think. Accepting tomatoes. :wink: Marty
That makes sense. He told them his issue and they said they wanted him to speak anyhow. How was that wrong? It's not like he tried to hide his intentions. I'm confused.... I guess that's where the he said/she said comes in. Because he said he tried to work things out before hand. IDK. I wasn't there, of course. NOT true!!!! If we never face "the other side" we'll never think critically about our own side!
OK Gals.....side note here! THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD ALL BE IN THE WORD CONSISTENTLY! How are we going to know incorrect doctrine or anti-scriptural teachings if WE don't know what the Bible says for ourselves? Depending on people to write things to "teach" us what the Bible says is not enough. Men are sinful and not perfect. Often times peoples views distort what the Word really says. You can know false doctrine and unsound teaching for yourself if you know what the Bible says! Just some encouragement for all of us, myself included, to be sure we are in God's Word daily! I think more people, myself included, should defend the Bible and the truths therein. We should stand up for what we believe, not matter how unpopular that makes us! Ken Ham did just this, and I see nothing wrong with it. He wasn't knocking secular teachings or curricula, he was defending truth based on the fact that they were incorrect "Christian" teachings. I don't think if someone was presenting secular curricula teaching evolution it would have been as much of a problem, but this Dr. Enns is claiming Christ and is teaching "scriptures" in error...thus the problem! Just my opinion!
