The classic book is probably Francis Collins' The Language of God: a scientist presents evidence for belief. It's fascinating, scholarly, and readable. In addition to the science, it documents Collins' conversion and Christian journey. For a good introduction to its content, there's a 90-minute video of Collins speaking at the University of Berkeley. Another good book is Coming to peace with science: bridging the worlds between faith an biology, by Professor Darrell Falk.
Oh so interesting. I have been researching the emerging church movement. ( which honestly scares the daylights out of me) and in a nutshell they do not teach that there is "truth" that Jesus was flawed, the bible is flawed, etc. They also teach that you can create your own truth. This sounds so much like the biologos Enns guy. I am glad that Hamm stood his ground. I would have never known about SWB or the other cir. that was being sold. Yes I could have bought it then I would be stuck with it, to throw in the trash. I do not have the time or funds to do that. I would much prefer to have somebody like Hamm, or anybody point out the faults in a study. Saves me the time. The same reason I post on here asking questions before I buy something. It also was interesting that I got an email from Wile on what they believe. I think the saying is good to remember, if you roll with the dogs you will get fleas.
I wanted to discuss this a bit further and since what I want to discuss is a little offtopic I'll quote it in a new thread.
Hey, a FB friend has actually seen the video of Ken discussing this. I've not seen it myself, but would like to. I asked her for the link; if she gets it to me, I'll post it here. That way, we can all determine for ourselves whether he was out of line or not. (Not that we'd come to a consensus on that...lol) But the convention's whole reason was that Ken was being mean-spirited. I'd like to see for myself if that was true, or if the convention was just using that as an excuse.
I did a little research. Dr. Enns is NOT a scientist; he attended and later taught at Westminster Theological Seminary. He's created waves with some of the things he's published, so much so that the board of trustees at the seminary voted to suspend him. The main source of contention is a book he wrote about the Old Testament, and I'm tempted to get a copy and read it. Some people praise him for the book, whereas others are very critical. I'm not going to comment until I understand the points he makes. Having said that, I do understand well the position of Francis Collins, and I agree with him. The video to which I posted a link above is well worth watching. Plus, none of this changes the points raised earlier: It's wrong to demand blind conformance, and we should not be making personal attacks. Further, there's no justification for AiG to brand Biologos an "extreme liberal" group. They did that because "liberal" has become a dirty word in today's "Christian culture". Once someone is termed a liberal, they are rejected - justified or not. It's pretty much an ad hominem attack.
Which is why I want to see the video, Steve. "Personal attacks" is not the same as refuting what is being taught. I'd like to see for myself which it is.
Jackie, Have you found a link to that video yet? I also would really like to see it for myself. I have to tell you all, that I really appreciate the way topics like this one are discussed on this forum. I have been reading threads on this same topic on another well known forum that prides itself in being "open minded" and "inclusive"; I have found it to be quite the opposite on this matter. It seems to be more the cult of SWB. Don't get me wrong. I like SWB, love the WTM, and even follow some of her curriculum suggestions. I just find the lack of truly open discussion on the topic to be nauseating, and less than conducive to intelligent conversation.
Have to agree with Carol Lynn....we may not all always agree...but the discussion makes for thought provoking soul searching!!!!
Someone on that other board sent me a PM with a link to this audio clip from Ken Ham's talk, that supposedly caused the dust-up. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/25/listen-to-this/
Thanks, Carol Lynn! My friend sent me the link late last night, and I've been running like crazy today with two meetings and co-op! This is just about the first I've had to sit down and deal with it. That's the same link I was given.
What comes to mind as I listen to that clip are small-group discussions we used to have in our church. Every Sunday afternoon, for a couple of hours, several of us would study particular Bible passages. For example, the Book of Acts took us about a year. When you go into passages in detail, all kinds of thoughts start to emerge. Some of them are interesting and insightful, others go nowhere, but all are tremendously useful. All of a sudden, you find yourself considering important questions, never considered before, that demand an answer. When you do this, there are times when you find yourself coming up with novel ideas - and some may even be heretical. When that happens, others sensitively point out the error, and we move on. It's part of the process. For example, I remember thinking that deacons are to elders what wives are to husbands, especially when you think of the church as a family of families. Perhaps I was running with this idea too far, and someone brought me back on track. This is the nature of discussion, of learning, of studying. Now, if someone recorded some of my statements in those meetings, they wouldn't always show me in a good light. How could I entertain such wacky ideas? How could I be so unsure? But such statements are part of a process of learning, in the context of a group of loving individuals, each of whom want to learn topics in more depth. In such an environment, we feel free to speak - to be vulnerable. It's OK to verbalize things that are wrong, because they help us to understand what is right. Why can't we have an open and honest and sensitive debate on the topic of origins? Why must we feel constantly on our guard, as if a single wrong statement will bring down on us a ton of hot bricks? Sadly, in our culture in general, we seem to force everyone into a position, and we're branded whenever we make a statement. Oh, he's a liberal. Wow, he's a heretic. Now, he's conservative; and so on. Just think how much could be accomplished if Ken Ham and Peter Enns and Francis Collins and Jay Wile (and can I be there too? ) agreed to participate in a 6-month study, meeting for half a day each week to get to grips with the subject. They should feel free to ask the questions that, if they admit it, are always nagging at them. The only ground rules would be that everyone shows respect to the other, that everyone feels free to speak whatever ideas and questions are on their mind, and that they must present to the world the conclusions on which they agree at the end of the process. These people are smart, and we could learn so much from them - if only they didn't feel the need to constantly 'position' themselves in a certain way. There's no shame, by the way, in concluding "I don't know." Isaac Newton was famous for issuing this phrase. In today's society it seem to imply weakness, whereas in reality it's a sign of strength and maturity.
I'm frustrated that the audio is only 2 minutes long. I'd like very much to hear what he had to say after that. Also, I have also gone and read the discussion on "another board that will remain nameless", and was totally amazed at what I would consider bordering on bashing going on there. And not just a few people, but EVERYONE. It has only helped to confirm my beliefs of the person behind the board.
This is, perhaps, one of the saddest phenomena in our age. Everyone is pigeon-holed, real discussion is avoided, and we make ourselves foolish by attacking one another over these matters. In church, I keep my mouth shut like a clam on these topics, except when asked or in private, so as to avoid any issue. It's just not worth the hassle. A few years ago, I casually implied to someone that the earth is billions of years old - just in passing! It wasn't even the topic of our conversation. This long-time friend, an older man I very much respect, flew off the handle. I thought he was going to burst a blood vessel. He laid into me, and I almost thought he was going to hit me! I was completely taken aback and have never forgotten this. How did we allow ourselves to reach this point? Why are we so quick to judge and so slow to discuss and learn? It's true of all 'sides', so I'm not blaming any one group. It's just a sign of the times.
Come, let us reason together.... It's interesting that we allow for this kind of discussion within our small groups, but don't allow for it from those we view as authority figures. I used to think this was the 'idealized pastor complex', but it is much farther reaching than the expectations we place on our pastors' finite human understanding. I have a feeling that after such discussions there would be much more they found that they didn't know than what they thought they knew. I am not saying that there is not absolute truths to be stated; however, there really are areas where we cling to the truths we already hold and create our own hypotheses only to then--by our pride or authority in a field--seem forced into declaring it confirmed fact. "...let each be fully convinced in his own mind." ~ Roman 14:5
My suspicion is that Dr. Enns is too much of an academic. He's assuming the rules that apply in a small group setting - openness and vulnerability - also apply in the public setting - where posturing and retrenchment are the norm. His ideas might be really interesting and worthy of discussion in a private group setting; however, when they are recorded and published on the web, he comes across as wish-washy, even heretical. Ken Ham, on the other hand, is an old hand at all this and knows that, in public, you act like there's a war on and don't give an inch - but he's probably a real bear in closed-door discussions.
Steve, I hear what you are saying about "small groups". But his comments, from my understanding at least, were NOT done in a small group, but in a large lecture-type presentation. As such, they were presented as his beliefs, not as something he's considered and wants others' views and a discussion on.
Having been an academic myself in the past, I can admit that academics are often on the other end of the spectrum to politicians. Whereas politicians weigh carefully everything they say in order to cultivate an image, academics constantly push the boundaries and really don't care too much what others think. That's what tenure and academic freedom does to you. In practice, it means that we view every platform, not just small groups, as an opportunity for discussion. Please don't take this the wrong way, because I'm trying to get the point across: We assume all minds are fully open and none are closed, that we can be provocative without causing waves. It's why I can be so irritating, because, in a sense, nothing is ever resolved. There are always more questions. Sometimes I find myself pushing an argument to nonsensical extremes before pulling back to reality - because I want to be sure I'm not missing something. We're all aware of college professors who come across as extremists and seem to make outrageous statements with impunity, but that's part of the job description of an academic: We're not bound to convention and couldn't give a hoot about politics. This is why I'm beginning to think that Dr. Enns falls to some extent into that category. He assumes that the current topic is up for debate, whereas, for Ken Ham, it's a totally closed door. One is the academic; the other is the politician. One sees life as an endless striving after knowledge; the other is happy living in a world of well-defined soundbites. If I'm right, Dr. Enns is not such a good choice as spokesman for his cause, because spokesmen must be comfortable offering clearly defined soundbites and must stay 'on message'. Yes, he's presenting to an audience, but the message is not completely 'black and white'. It's his opinion, but it's blended with unresolved thoughts and ideas (I'm certainly guilty of that). Of course, I could be way off base, but this is the impression I'm beginning to get.
First of all, I am not questioning Dr. Enns' salvation. That is for God to determine, not me. I also believe that every Christian has some misunderstanding of scriptures, that there are parts we have misinterpreted. However, having said that, I also believe that ALL scripture is accurate as written. From what I have seen, heard and understood of Dr. Enns' teaching, he does not accept the scriptures as being literal. Those are fairly serious concerns. Why is it wrong to say exactly what the man is teaching, and how it doesn't stand up to what the Bible teaches? The Bible talks about the Bereans being of more noble character than the Thessolonians. Why? Because they would examine what they were being taught in light of what the scriptures said. That's what Ken is doing, and he's pointing out where Dr. Enns' particular teaching doesn't measure up.
I've been mulling over the whole "he shouldn't name names" idea. Here are a couple of thoughts on that: If he had been vague about which curriculum, company, or speaker, just as many people would have been upset with him for various reasons. First, when we don't name names, our integrity is questioned. People tend to respond with things like, "If he didn't give me evidence that someone is making that claim, how I can I believe they really are?" "Why is he hiding? Does he not want us to read it for ourselves?" "No documentation, no truth." People also get irritated if they genuinely care about what you're saying, "Well how am I going to avoid this speaker if I don't know who it is!?" Those people who already knew or figured out who Ken was talking about would have indignant thoughts like, "Oh Please. Who does he think he's kidding? We all know who he means!" And still other people would have taken the morally superior road, "If he doesn't say about whom he's speaking, how can that person defend himself!?" I believe that no matter what Ken did vs. what he could have done, the result would have been the same. In our society of tolerance, even in the Christian community, people get ticked off any time anyone says anything is wrong.
