Peter Enns did a recent post on the “Benefit of Doubt.” Much of what he says is true, considered in isolation. However, his post is profoundly deceptive.
1. There’s a fundamental difference between having doubts and fostering doubts. Peter Enns and his cohorts at Biologos aren’t merely sympathizing with struggling believers. No. Enns and his cohorts are doing their best to instill doubt. Make the faithful doubt God's word. That’s a subversive, diabolical activity.
2. There is also the pungent aroma of hypocrisy emanating from his post. Enns lacks a capacity for self-criticism. He’s not somebody who projects self-doubt. He’s not attempting to cultivate doubts about macroevolution, &c.
Like militant apostates generally, he exudes tremendous self-confidence as he labors to win deconverts to his cause. For Enns, doubt is only a “gift of God” when it makes a conservative believer question his faith.
3. Then there’s this bizarre statement: “Read Ecclesiastes where Qoheleth’s entire universe of meaning is crumbling before him and he shakes his fist at God himself.”
I don’t see Qohelet “shaking his first at God.” To the contrary, I see Qohelet resigned to the inscrutable providence for God. For Qohelet, this world is not enough. There must be something more. This can’t be the whole story.
It’s as if we were dropped into the middle of the story–like waking up in a strange city.
Steve, I have to take issue with your comments here. This is a profoundly uncharitable reading of Enns' post.
ReplyDelete"1. There’s a fundamental difference between having doubts and fostering doubts. Peter Enns and his cohorts at Biologos aren’t merely sympathizing with struggling believers. No. Enns and his cohorts are doing their best to instill doubt. Make the faithful doubt God's word. That’s a subversive, diabolical activity."
I hope you're not implying that it's wrong everywhere, always and for everyone to instill doubts on any issue. In evangelism we try to instill doubts about people's apathy toward God and their ignorance of their need for salvation. And more generally, when you're convinced that someone is being misled, you will try to raise doubts about their current beliefs. You make it sound as if 'doing their best to instill doubt' is something morally wrong. But if Biologos is right about the strength of the evidence for evolution, instilling doubt about the accuracy of the YEC is morally praiseworthy. We are supposed to seek the truth above all else, which includes the usurpation of falsehood.
"Make the faithful doubt God's word." I hope you realize that this is a hopelessly vague, question-begging statement. It's vague because you don't specify what exactly it means to doubt God's word. And it's question-begging because you are presupposing a very specific view of the nature and authority of Scripture which all Christians do not share. Enns deals with Christians who are finding it very hard to reconcile their trust in God's word with the findings of natural science. He is not making them doubt God's Word, he is allowing them to hold onto their trust in it by showing that one can affirm both the scientific account of origins and the authority of the Bible. I'd say he's doing the Church a service. If I was convinced that the only legitimate model of origins for a Christian was the YEC model I would have abandoned my faith a long time ago, because my study of the relevant science forces me to take the evolutionary history of the cosmos seriously.
(cont'd)
ReplyDelete"2. There is also the pungent aroma of hypocrisy emanating from his post. Enns lacks a capacity for self-criticism. He’s not somebody who projects self-doubt. He’s not attempting to cultivate doubts about macroevolution, &c."
A classic tu quoque response, but I'm not sure what mileage it gets you. You're not exactly doubtful about your own convictions re: Calvinism, anti-realism in science and the like. Presumably because you take those views to be well-founded. Why should Enns attempt to cultivate doubts about macroevolution if there's good evidence for it, or at least what he thinks is good evidence? We can't be doubting all our beliefs all the time. There comes a point in every thinker's experience when certain beliefs become the new default, only to be overturned in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and until that happens they are taken for granted. For Enns the new default is the facticity of macro-evolution, so until he is presented with convincing evidence to the contrary his theological project is to reconcile macroevolution with his understanding of Scripture.
"Like militant apostates generally, he exudes tremendous self-confidence as he labors to win deconverts to his cause. For Enns, doubt is only a “gift of God” when it makes a conservative believer question his faith. "
That Enns is trying to deconvert people is ridiculous. John Loftus is trying to deconvert people from Christianity. So are Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Jason Long and others. Not Peter Enns. He's trying to allow people to hold onto their faith in the face of the challenge of evolution. How did that come to be called deconversion? Unless of course you think YEC is the only legitimate origins model for Christians, in that case yes he is attempting to deconvert people, and he should. Again, we are obligated to pursue the truth, and I find YEC highly unlikely to be the truth about our origins.
And you haven't read the post carefully. Doubt, according to Enns, is not a gift of God only when it makes a conservative believer question his faith. Rather, it is a gift when it makes any believer question their unreflective faith, whatever that may be:
"Doubt forces us to examine what we believe about God—and this can be unsettling. What we thought was our “faith in God” sometimes winds up being little more than faith in ourselves—our own ability to grasp God, to possess him our way, to have him figured out."
Enns is referring to anyone who believes anything about God here. He does not single out conservative theology. I'm sure you would agree with this statement if he made it clear he was referring to liberal understandings of God, so why not conservative theology as well?
I agree with you about the interpretation of Ecclesiastes, though.
"The pretense of doubt"
ReplyDeleteAn excellent title for this blog post!
Just like there is a faux humility or a pretense of modesty, there is also the pretense of doubt. And Enns does this as well.
Enns' work after being fired from Westminster validates Westminster's decision to fire him.
Theistic evolution is severely aberrant doctrine.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete“This is a profoundly uncharitable reading of Enns' post.”
Because I don’t play the patsy for Enns? Sorry, but I don’t think gullibility is either an ethical or theological imperative.
“I hope you're not implying that it's wrong everywhere, always and for everyone to instill doubts on any issue.”
Well, that’s ironic coming on the heels of your accusation about uncharitable interpretations.
What’s the context of my statement? The way in which Enns denies or undermines inerrancy to make room for whatever he can’t believe in the Bible.
“But if Biologos is right about the strength of the evidence for evolution, instilling doubt about the accuracy of the YEC is morally praiseworthy.”
The question at issue is not the accuracy of YEC, but the accuracy of Scripture. Enns openly denies the inerrancy of Scripture. For instance, he admits that Paul taught the historicity of Adam, which Enns regards as false.
“I hope you realize that this is a hopelessly vague, question-begging statement. It's vague because you don't specify what exactly it means to doubt God's word.”
That’s because Enns has a track-record at BioLogos. And not only him. BioLogos is a collaborative effort. Sparks is another contributor who explicitly denies the inerrancy of Scripture.
“Enns deals with Christians who are finding it very hard to reconcile their trust in God's word with the findings of natural science. He is not making them doubt God's Word, he is allowing them to hold onto their trust in it by showing that one can affirm both the scientific account of origins and the authority of the Bible.”
Well, that’s one explanation. Here’s an alternative explanation: What we see here is an exercise in self-justification. Enns wants to rationalize his infidelity, and part of that process involves enlisting others to second his infidelity.
“I'd say he's doing the Church a service.”
Which explains why you are so defensive. It would, however, behoove you to redirect your zeal from defending those who attack, and attacking those who defend the Bible, to defending the Bible against those who attack it.
“If I was convinced that the only legitimate model of origins for a Christian was the YEC model I would have abandoned my faith a long time ago, because my study of the relevant science forces me to take the evolutionary history of the cosmos seriously.”
i) Once again, the question at issue is not YEC, but inerrancy. It’s not as if the primary contributors to BioLogos are any more sympathetic to OEC, or even ID theory (which is neutral on these permutations). Try to pay attention to the actual state of play over at BioLogos.
ii) You’re the one, not me, who’s hyping the issue of YEC. I didn’t bring that up in my post. Try to use my post as a window, not a mirror. It will do wonders for your vision.
iii) If you’d cast off your Christian faith due to apparent conflicts between Scripture and science, then your faith was pretty cheap to begin with. You undervalue the Gospel, and overvalue science.
Let’s hope your statement is a reflection of youthful impetuosity rather than settled judgment.
“You're not exactly doubtful about your own convictions re: Calvinism, anti-realism in science and the like.”
A non sequitur since I’m not the one who was commending the value of doubt, Enns was. I’m merely responding to him on his own terms. That’s not difficult to grasp, JD. If you weren’t emoting so much, you could see that.
Cont. “Why should Enns attempt to cultivate doubts about macroevolution if there's good evidence for it, or at least what he thinks is good evidence?”
ReplyDeletei) Why is it better to cultivate doubts about Scripture than to doubts about macroevolution?
ii) And his post affects this pose of mock humility when, in fact, he’s nothing of the kind.
“For Enns the new default is the facticity of macro-evolution, so until he is presented with convincing evidence to the contrary his theological project is to reconcile macroevolution with his understanding of Scripture.”
i) To begin with, I don’t see BioLogos ever make an honest attempt to deal with the other side of the argument. But maybe I missed something.
ii) And what about taking certain things on faith? Is that too much for God to ask of us? Or should we murmur in the wilderness?
“That Enns is trying to deconvert people is ridiculous.”
It’s ridiculous to you because you want to keep your options open.
“He's trying to allow people to hold onto their faith in the face of the challenge of evolution.”
He destroys the village to save the village. Helps them to “hold onto their faith” by undercutting their faith in Scripture.
“Unless of course you think YEC is the only legitimate origins model for Christians, in that case yes he is attempting to deconvert people, and he should.”
Once more, you’re the one who’s obsessing over YEC, not me. That was no part of my post. And that’s hardly the only target over at BioLogos.
“Again, we are obligated to pursue the truth, and I find YEC highly unlikely to be the truth about our origins.”
i) If you assume that pursuing the truth takes you away from Scripture.
ii) And as far as that goes, I don’t think we have an unconditional obligation to pursue the truth. If atheism were true, then we’d have no obligation to pursue the true, for in that event, we’d have no obligations whatsoever. We only have an obligation to pursue the truth on condition that we have obligations. Once you deny the Christian faith, then duty and morality are the first casualties.
“Doubt, according to Enns, is not a gift of God only when it makes a conservative believer question his faith. Rather, it is a gift when it makes any believer question their unreflective faith, whatever that may be.”
Don’t be duped. It’s not a virtue. Enns is consistently and completely one-sided in his criterion of doubt.
Sure, for PR purposes he may like to sound as if this is open-ended, but that’s just a ploy. Transparently so. Compare that with his paper trail.
“Enns is referring to anyone who believes anything about God here.”
He says that for public consumption, to foster the illusion of even-handedness. But in practice he’s quite single-minded.
"Because I don’t play the patsy for Enns?"
ReplyDeleteNo, because you attribute to him base motives that he does not hold. He is not trying to get people to abandon their faith, he is trying to get them to nuance it precisely so they may hold onto it. Even if you think his version of faith is untenable and unorthodox, at least acknowledge that his intention is not to destroy faith but to save it. Charity does not mean thinking that people are right, but it does mean rightly construing their intentions.
"Well, that’s ironic coming on the heels of your accusation about uncharitable interpretations."
How? Sometimes it may be legitimate to cast doubts on someone's intentions and character despite the appearances. But in light of Enns' long career as a biblical scholar struggling to be true both to his faith and his critical scruples, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He is not trying to destroy faith, he is not even trying to liberalize it in 19th Century fashion. Anyone familiar with his work would realize that.
"The question at issue is not the accuracy of YEC, but the accuracy of Scripture. Enns openly denies the inerrancy of Scripture. For instance, he admits that Paul taught the historicity of Adam, which Enns regards as false."
Maybe he just denies a particular understanding of inerrancy:
"What I&I denies is a doctrine of inerrancy that is beholden wholly to older formulations for their own sake, but that strains our understanding of or is in unnecessary tension with Scripture’s own content and behavior. But what keeps me using the term is my faith commitment to the role that the Spirit played in the production of Scripture and continues to play in the church’s appropriation of Scripture."
http://peterennsonline.com/ii/ii-denies-inerrancy/
To say that he denies inerrancy is to assume a particular definition of a contested term.
"Here’s an alternative explanation: What we see here is an exercise in self-justification. Enns wants to rationalize his infidelity, and part of that process involves enlisting others to second his infidelity."
We all depend on the plausibility structures from the community around us to maintain confidence in our beliefs. But I think it's clear that Enns is not so much interested in having a choir to sing to as he is in creating space for Christian faith to thrive in a world where science has considerable authority (and rightly so, in my opinion, again based on my own study of science).
"It would, however, behoove you to redirect your zeal from defending those who attack, and attacking those who defend the Bible, to defending the Bible against those who attack it."
Again, I think it's ridiculous to claim that Enns is attacking the Bible. Dawkins and Hitchens attack the Bible. Ingersoll and Paine attacked the Bible. Enns is not attacking the Bible. But again, your characterization is very vague. What does it mean to attack the Bible?
And neither am I attacking you. I greatly admire the work you, Jason Engwer, Paul Manata and others do in defense of the reliability of the Gospels, etc. I do think you are misreading Enns' intentions, and I took the trouble to let you know where and why, but that's not attacking you!
And anyone who has read my voluminous posts on Christian CADRE knows how zealous I am in defense of the Bible. But I cannot go against my intellectual honesty in defending an understanding of the Bible and its authority that I regard as untenable. But given that I believe in and defend the historicity of the Gospels with regard to Jesus' teaching, life, miracles, death and resurrection and that I am committed to the Nicene and Apostolic creeds, I would say I qualify as a defender of the Bible, not an attacker.
"You’re the one, not me, who’s hyping the issue of YEC. I didn’t bring that up in my post. Try to use my post as a window, not a mirror. It will do wonders for your vision."
ReplyDeleteI understand very well, thank you very much, that your primary concern is that Enns and Biologos are undermining inerrancy. My point in bringing up YEC is that for many Christians it has been a sticking point for their faith, because of their assumption that inerrancy entails YEC, which is in conflict with well established science.
"If you’d cast off your Christian faith due to apparent conflicts between Scripture and science, then your faith was pretty cheap to begin with. You undervalue the Gospel, and overvalue science."
On the contrary, I think it's a cheap faith that settles into a particular understanding of things and from there on is impervious to development. It's a cheap faith that doesn't realize there is legitimate scope for development of our theological understanding in light of our ongoing use of reason to understand the world.
I do not undervalue the Gospel, it is the most precious thing in the world for me. That is precisely why I strive to harmonize my understanding of the Gospel with my understanding of the natural world derived from science. And it is not overvaluing science to acknowledge where substantial progress has been made. It is giving science its due. It is taking it seriously, which you seem reluctant to do, even though you are typing these posts using a computer made possible as a result of advances in physical science.
"Why is it better to cultivate doubts about Scripture than doubts about macroevolution?"
Again, I suspect you already 'know' what it means to doubt Scripture and wouldn't be open to my urging that Enns only doubts what he regards as an untenable understanding of Scripture. I think (and I suspect Enns would say this too) that it is good to cultivate doubts wherever there is a suspicion that certain views rest on less than adequate evidence, or are even counter-indicated by the evidence. Don't set this up as a principled attack on Scripture over against science. That is not Enns' intent, and neither is it mine.
"To begin with, I don’t see BioLogos ever make an honest attempt to deal with the other side of the argument."
Which argument are you referring to? Over Scripture or over macroevolution? If the former, Enns has written lots of material on understanding the authority of the Bible on an 'incarnational' model. If the latter, Biologos recommends plenty of books dealing with scientific creationism written by evangelicals, including the recent "The Bible, Rocks and Time".
"If you assume that pursuing the truth takes you away from Scripture."
I certainly do not assume that. But again, your understanding of going 'away' from Scripture is much more rigid than mine or Enns'.
"And as far as that goes, I don’t think we have an unconditional obligation to pursue the truth. If atheism were true, then we’d have no obligation to pursue the true, for in that event, we’d have no obligations whatsoever. We only have an obligation to pursue the truth on condition that we have obligations. Once you deny the Christian faith, then duty and morality are the first casualties."
I would agree that on certain materialistic views the existence of obligations is absurd, but I don't trinitarian Christian faith is the only possible ground of duty and morality. It may be the most plausible, but not the only possible one.
"he is trying to get them to nuance it precisely so they may hold onto it"
ReplyDeleteNuancing the faith by removing an essential element of it is not something that permits them to hold onto "it" - it's something that permits folks to hold something other than the faith.
- TurretinFan
Apparently the devil never gets tired of dusting off and trotting out that most ancient of lines: "Yea, hath God said?"
ReplyDeleteThere truly is nothing new under the sun!
In Christ,
CD
"I would agree that on certain materialistic views the existence of obligations is absurd, but I don't trinitarian Christian faith is the only possible ground of duty and morality. It may be the most plausible, but not the only possible one."
ReplyDeleteI would agree that on certain materialistic views the existence of obligations is absurd, but I find the love of chicken as a possible ground of duty and morality. It may not be the most plausible, but it is a possible one
@Coram Deo
ReplyDelete"Apparently the devil never gets tired of dusting off and trotting out that most ancient of lines: "Yea, hath God said?""
I assume you wouldn't mind asking that question of a Mormon?
"I would agree that on certain materialistic views the existence of obligations is absurd, but I find the love of chicken as a possible ground of duty and morality. It may not be the most plausible, but it is a possible one."
Your ridicule is infuriating and a little sad. It shows great ignorance of the history of ideas.
JD Walters said...
ReplyDelete"your ridicule is infuriating and a little sad. It shows great ignorance of the history of ideas."
I was merely presenting a possible ground. Your comment indicated that even IF the Triune God were the most plausible, it wouldn't matter as long as there were other possible grounds. If the aim for having a grounds was simply "possibility" there need not be any concern for sophisticated or complex, just as long as it works.
JD Walters said:
ReplyDelete---
My point in bringing up YEC is that for many Christians it has been a sticking point for their faith, because of their assumption that inerrancy entails YEC, which is in conflict with well established science.
---
Just what is "well established science"? I mean, surely you must be aware that the concepts by which the age of the Earth is dated to be billions of years old have been around for a whopping 100 years now, that relativity just barely cracked the century mark, that Darwinism has only been around for 150 years, that string theory is only just over 30 years old, that the chaos theory has only cracked its second decade, that plate tectonics is only 60 years old, that...oh, I could go on but the point ought to have been made by now.
What is "well established science" today is the phlogiston and aether of tomorrow.
But at least you can have fun with your theologically liberal friends scoffing the troglodytes for their unsophisticated ways before the next Kuhnian paradigm shift requires you to reboot your mind.
1. JD Walters said:
ReplyDeleteBut I think it's clear that Enns is not so much interested in having a choir to sing to as he is in creating space for Christian faith to thrive in a world where science has considerable authority (and rightly so, in my opinion, again based on my own study of science).
It's one thing to affirm inerrancy and also acknowledge that "science has considerable authority." But it's quite another to do what Enns is doing, which is to subtly cast doubt on Scripture in order to give "science" (among other things) interpretative priority over Scripture.
2. On the one hand, JD says: "Don't set this up as a principled attack on Scripture over against science. That is not Enns' intent, and neither is it mine."
On the other hand, JD says: "My point in bringing up YEC is that for many Christians it has been a sticking point for their faith, because of their assumption that inerrancy entails YEC, which is in conflict with well established science."
3. Let's say it's true inerrancy does indeed entail a position which "is in conflict with well established science." Would you fault those Christians for choosing the Bible over science?
4. Of course, if you're going to cast the debate in binary terms, I'd think it'd be more apropos to say it's the autonomy of God over and against the autonomy of man. Specifically, the autonomy of the mind of man.
5. As Peter pointed out, what's "well established science" ain't exactly clear cut. What exactly does it mean to say science is "well established"?
a. Perhaps by "well established" you mean there is majority consensus among scientists on a particular scientific point or theory or the like. However, as far as science is concerned, consensus doesn't necessarily mean it's true. The fact that a position is "well established" doesn't necessarily indicate its truth. It just takes one guy being right for science to be established.
b. Moreover perhaps you mean to imply a position like YEC, OEC, ID, and/or disbelief in macroevolution is not intellectually respectable. Or something along those lines. Yet there are intelligent Christians educated in scientific disciplines who are conversant with the latest scientific research and publications who maintain one or more of these positions.
c. Sure, we can say some fields are more "well established" than others. I suppose embryology and anatomy are about as "well established" scientific fields as one can get but even they are revisable in light of new findings in, say, genetics or neuroscience. (BTW, I don't include mathematics as a scientific field here.)
d. But I don't think we can say any single scientific field is so perfectly "well established" if by "well established" one means established in a state where knowledge does not change or at least is not subject to revision but only grows. It's not as if there's a body of scientific knowledge which remains unaltered once discovered, simply awaiting future additions to an unchangeable corpus.
ReplyDeleteRather, I think science is quite fluid, frequently revising itself. This isn't to suggest we have to be uncertain about everything we've discovered through scientific means. I'm just saying there's more than meets the eye when you say science is "well established." I'm just saying science isn't necessarily as "well established" as you might think.
Take DNA. In 1953 Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA. It's been approximately 60 years, and in that time the discovery of the structure of DNA has impacted fields as diverse as organic chemistry and particle physics. It's led in turn to the discovery of protein synthesis and adaptations like the use of recombinant DNA. Not to mention mapping the human genome and of course Venter's latest work in supposedly creating life. Coupled with modern technology and engineering, it's led to advances in biotechnology and nanotechnology. It's shaped entire fields like immunology (e.g. therapeutic monoclonal antibodies). It's allowed for modern forensics (e.g. genetic fingerprinting). It's transformed how doctors diagnose and treat diseases in clinical medicine. It's shed light on RNA too (e.g. RNA world hypothesis). Now, you might see the discovery of DNA's structure as a static event in and of itself, which led to other singular events. Yes, of course, that's true. But there's more to it than that. All these fields it has created and influenced and all the subfields which have emerged in turn feedback into our understanding of DNA itself too.
In other words, just as much as we're building on past discoveries in search of future ones, we're likewise constantly revising our understanding of past discoveries in light of present ones.
e. BTW, in my opinion so much more awaits too. As mentioned, we've sequenced the human genome. We've identified various regions within DNA (e.g. exons, introns). We know how DNA self-replicates. From DNA to mRNA to tRNA and proteins and so forth. But we don't know how it all fits together into a seamless whole to make us who we are. Similarly, we know neuroanatomy, or at least we think we've got a good handle on the various macro and micro features of the human brain and nervous systems. We understand quite a bit about neurons and their axons and the like (e.g. action potentials, central pattern generators). But again we haven't the slightest clue what to do with it all. There's no guarantee we will figure it out either. But if and when we do figure out how it all fits together, will it mean a scientific microrevolution if not revolution? Will it mean a paradigm-shift? It doesn't seem implausible to think so.
f. In any case, for you to assume "science" is "well established" at a minimum raises the question of what you mean by "well established." But it also raises the question of how you perceive what science is and how it works. What is scientific progress. Etc. As you know, these entail philosophical questions.
I like it that Mr. Walters has here equated "inerrancy" with "Mormonism". Steve's post is, of course, the hot white light under which a lot of distinctions become apparent, but the real diving line is Walters' implicit comparison in trying to overturn the complint.
ReplyDeleteJD Walters asked: I assume you wouldn't mind asking that question of a Mormon?
ReplyDeleteFrank Turk said: I like it that Mr. Walters has here equated "inerrancy" with "Mormonism".
As the OP stated in its opening salvo:
1. There’s a fundamental difference between having doubts and fostering doubts. Peter Enns and his cohorts at Biologos aren’t merely sympathizing with struggling believers. No. Enns and his cohorts are doing their best to instill doubt. Make the faithful doubt God's word. That’s a subversive, diabolical activity.
Methinks you'd do well to consider those distinctions, Mr. Walters.
'nuff said.
In Christ,
CD
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete“No, because you attribute to him base motives that he does not hold.”
i) Both of us are imputing motives to Enns. It’s not as if you (JD) have direct access to his true motives.
ii) Enns is an easily recognizable type. (For the record, so am I.) In every generation we have people like Enns. The players may change, but the play remains the same. In the past, someone like Charles Augustus Briggs played the same role.
iii) I’m also justified in my imputation of motives because the Bible has a fair amount to say about what motivates a man to question God’s word. I apply biblical psychology to the case of Enns.
“He is not trying to get people to abandon their faith, he is trying to get them to nuance it precisely so they may hold onto it. Even if you think his version of faith is untenable and unorthodox, at least acknowledge that his intention is not to destroy faith but to save it. Charity does not mean thinking that people are right, but it does mean rightly construing their intentions.”
You have a rather naïve view of what it takes to make somebody an enemy of the faith. But there’s more than one type. There’s the outsider. The open opponent. Bertrand Russell. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. Bart Ehrman. Antony Flew.
But then you have insiders like Bultmann, Schleiermacher, Spong, Fosdick, Cupitt, and D. Z. Phillips. They don’t see themselves as opponents of the faith. To the contrary, they cast themselves as saviors of the faith. They’re trying to “rescue” the Bible from the fundies. Make Christianity palatable to modern man.
Insiders can do more damage than outsiders because, in their self-deluded mission, they actually imagine that they are doing the Christian faith a favor.
“How? Sometimes it may be legitimate to cast doubts on someone's intentions and character despite the appearances. But in light of Enns' long career as a biblical scholar struggling to be true both to his faith and his critical scruples, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.”
Trust is earned, and he has earned my distrust.
“He is not trying to destroy faith, he is not even trying to liberalize it in 19th Century fashion.”
He may wear a chammy overcoat, but the pointy snout and the protruding fangs are a dead giveaway.
“Anyone familiar with his work would realize that.”
Since I’m familiar with his work, that’s a rather conceited statement on your part. Try to use persuasion rather than assertion.
“To say that he denies inerrancy is to assume a particular definition of a contested term.”
Back to my example. On the one hand he admits that Paul thought and taught that Adam was a real person. The first man. The first human being.
On the other hand he believes that this can’t be true. Given what we “know” about the “true” origins of man (a la evolution), that’s not possible.
So something has to give. Guess what?
If you want to say the Bible is “inerrant” even though it inculcates factual falsehoods, then that’s a Pickwickian definition of terms. Who are we fooling?
Cont. “But I think it's clear that Enns is not so much interested in having a choir to sing to as he is in creating space for Christian faith to thrive in a world where science has considerable authority (and rightly so, in my opinion, again based on my own study of science).”
ReplyDeleteAnd I think it’s clear that he’s trying to create space for his own latitudinarian faith.
“Again, I think it's ridiculous to claim that Enns is attacking the Bible. Dawkins and Hitchens attack the Bible. Ingersoll and Paine attacked the Bible. Enns is not attacking the Bible. But again, your characterization is very vague. What does it mean to attack the Bible?”
Once again you expose your naïveté. For instance, Mary Baker Eddy didn’t consciously intend to attack the Bible or the Christian faith. But her idealistic filter is just as destructive as Porphyry’s frontal attack. You can destroy the Christian faith from within by redefining key terms and concepts, a la Swedenborg.
“I greatly admire the work you, Jason Engwer, Paul Manata and others do in defense of the reliability of the Gospels, etc”
The respect is mutual. But defending Enns is unworthy of your talents.
“And anyone who has read my voluminous posts on Christian CADRE knows how zealous I am in defense of the Bible.”
Which I appreciate. But at the moment you’re taking away with one hand what you give with another.
“But I cannot go against my intellectual honesty in defending an understanding of the Bible and its authority that I regard as untenable.”
I don’t know what that means. Does tenability take the self-understanding of Scripture as its point of reference, or an extraneous reference point like the scientific establishment?
We can only defend the Bible on its own terms. We can’t honestly defend the Bible in a way that runs counter to the self-understanding of Scripture.
“My point in bringing up YEC is that for many Christians it has been a sticking point for their faith, because of their assumption that inerrancy entails YEC, which is in conflict with well established science.”
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t. BioLogos never engages the more astute representatives of YEC (e.g. Byl, Snelling, Sarfati, Wise).
“On the contrary, I think it's a cheap faith that settles into a particular understanding of things and from there on is impervious to development.”
i) Now you’re changing the subject. You initially cast the issue in terms of choosing between Christian faith and apostasy. Now you’ve recast the issue in terms of a choice between a monolithic understanding of the faith and a historically progressive understanding of the faith. We could debate the pros and cons of that, but it’s a different issue.
ii) The Bible means whatever it means. We can’t begin with what we’re prepared to believe, then dictate that what the Bible means can only fall within the preset parameters of what we’re prepared to believe. That’s not how we interpret Homer or Dante or Bradbury.
Cont. “It is taking it seriously, which you seem reluctant to do, even though you are typing these posts using a computer made possible as a result of advances in physical science.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s philosophically jejune. Technology is quite compatible with varieties of scientific antirealism.
“Again, I suspect you already 'know' what it means to doubt Scripture and wouldn't be open to my urging that Enns only doubts what he regards as an untenable understanding of Scripture.”
i) That’s demonstrably false. It’s a useful ruse for Enns to pretend that this is just a hermeneutical issue. And that’s a nice softening up exercise. But he’s gone beyond that. He takes the position that on the correct understanding of Scripture (i.e. his own understanding), Scripture is simply wrong on issues like the historicity of Adam as the father of the human race.
ii) Unless by “understanding Scripture, you mean, not understanding what Scripture teaches, but understanding the nature of Scripture itself. Yet the two issues are intertwined. To understand what Scripture teaches will include an understanding of what it teaches about itself. By imputing error to the teaching of Scripture, Enns also rejects the self-referential teaching of Scripture as the word of God.
Christianity is a revealed religion. You can’t “nuance” away the revelatory foundation, and still have Christianity. Either God has spoken or he hasn’t.
“Which argument are you referring to? Over Scripture or over macroevolution?”
Their one-sided treatment of comparative mythology. Their habitual caricaturing of ID theory. The fact that they dismiss YEC out of hand rather than debate the most sophisticated exponents of that position. The fact that they simply ignore OEC.
“If the former, Enns has written lots of material on understanding the authority of the Bible on an 'incarnational' model.”
Which D. A. Carson dismantled in an early review.
“I would agree that on certain materialistic views the existence of obligations is absurd, but I don't trinitarian Christian faith is the only possible ground of duty and morality. It may be the most plausible, but not the only possible one.”
Well, that poses a striking dilemma. I value truth because I’m a Christian. Were I not a Christian, I wouldn’t care. In a godless world, who was right and who was wrong doesn’t make a bit of difference in the long run. In that event, you and I are slabs of meat in the morgue.
I don’t have a fallback option. I’m not hedging my bets. I got all my chips on the Christian jackpot. For me it’s Christianity or bust. All in or all out. There’s nothing in-between.
For me it’s Christianity or bust. All in or all out. There’s nothing in-between.
ReplyDeleteI came to that conclusion some time back myself. But are you also saying that it's "inerrancy or bust"?
My main problem with Enns' post is he gives no guidance as to how doubt leads to truth. He seems to suggest that the Christian should embrace doubt and that whatever is left standing is God. That does not seem compatible with even a lower view of the authority of scripture. Nor is that the way it works in real life, as the growing number of the online naive skeptic "testimonies" about their own deconversions attests.
Give doubt the reigns in your life and you risk throwing your faith away for some ultimately baseless reasons.
LAYMAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"But are you also saying that it's 'inerrancy or bust'?"
Always nice to hear from you, Layman. You, JD, and BK, are the troika that put the CADRE in the top-tier of Christian apologetic blogs.
i) Since I don't think there's viable alternative to Christianity, there's a sense in which your hypothetical (inerrancy or else) is moot.
I admittedly have a presuppositional commitment to inerrancy:
ii) That dovetails with the self-witness of Scripture regarding verbal inspiration, which entails inerrancy (if you also factor in the Biblical view of God).
iii) As a saved sinner, I have a duty to put my trust in the truthfulness of God's word.
iv) Without the intersubjectival standard and external check of divine revelation, I think there's very little that we can know about the sensible world. So I regard divine revelation is a necessary precondition of human knowledge. As such, empirical evidence can never disprove the Bible.
(Of course, we need a separate argument to address rival revelatory claimants.)