JD Walters and I recently had an exchange over Peter Enns. Now there are different ways of sizing up his position. One way is to judge him by his own statements. However, Enns is also a part of a collaborative effort over at BioLogos. I'm going to quote a few statements by his fellow contributor, Ken Sparks.
Now, it's obvious from what he says that Sparks has no personal investment in the Christian faith. And I appreciate his candor. At least he's not putting on a false front.
But either Enns agrees with Sparks or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then what are we to make of his silence?
Kent Sparks - #19986
I have no interest in preserving Christianity ... I believe because, as I understand it, it makes sense of human experience. But if it turns out that Christianity fails to do that, I’ll simply turn elsewhere.
Kent Sparks - #20019
I am not interested in any theology that makes God out to be the murderer of his himself ...
Kent Sparks - #20041
I do believe that a barbaric view of God appears in Scripture and that it reflects a broken human perspective that naturally arises when we see a troubled world. Things are bad, so God is causing it ... that is the logic.
I am no pacifist. There are instances in which violence is necessary to protect the innocent ... but the idea that God would actually command his people to kill innocent people can’t be right ... Better to be a Unitarian than to believe such a thing.
Kent Sparks - #20182
So I must work with the Bible that we have ... beautiful but broken ... or admit, with all of the skeptics, that the broken world, and broken Bible, are strong evidence that God either doesn’t exist or doesn’t care.
I come to Christianity from the outside, so to speak, and have no interest in perpetuting a faith in Christ and Scripture if that entails believing all sorts of things that don’t suit the evidence or experience.
http://biologos.org/blog/after-inerrancy-evangelicals-and-the-bible-in-a-postmodern-age-part-5/
Pretty self-damning stuff coming from an allegedly Christian organization. It's pretty clear here that these folks are in the grip of an idol, the dictates of modern science.
ReplyDeleteI am not interested in any theology that makes God out to be the murderer of his himself ...
ReplyDeleteWhat the heck does this mean? Does Sparks have no notion of the doctrine of the Trinity?
"But either Enns agrees with Sparks or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then what are we to make of his silence?"
ReplyDeleteEnns failure to instruct, or failure to correct, or failure to object to Sparks is very telling.
It's very telling that Enns would rather take issue with non-theistic evolutionist Christians than to take issue with the damaging remarks of fellow Biologos member Ken Sparks.
Shame on Enns.
...what are we to make of his silence?
ReplyDeleteThat Westminster clearly did the right thing?
As I look over your comments, I get the sense both that you've not quite understood what I've said and, further, that where you've understood it, I don't see why you're so troubled.
ReplyDeleteBut those matters aside, please know that my views are NOT those of Biologos nor of Pete Enns. I don't see how what I've written can occasion any criticism of either.
KS,
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm pretty sure that we do understand your comments. You hate the parts of God's Word where He reveals aspects of Himself that you personally find unpleasant. So you judge God by your own standard. Which is just exactly what Adam did.
You hate God's character. You hate God. You would rather make up a god for yourself and worship that, because it gives you warm fuzzies.
Yeah, we get it.
Sorry you feel that way, Jonah.
ReplyDeleteBlessings,
Kent
KENT SPARKS SAID:
ReplyDelete"As I look over your comments, I get the sense both that you've not quite understood what I've said and, further, that where you've understood it, I don't see why you're so troubled."
Yet you've given us no reason to think otherwise on either count.
"No, I'm pretty sure that we do understand your comments. You hate the parts of God's Word where He reveals aspects of Himself that you personally find unpleasant."
ReplyDeleteThere's something odd about this. In most moral arguments for the existence of God apologists bring out paradigm examples of pure evil, such as torturing babies for fun. The goal is to get the unbeliever to admit that a statement like "it's always wrong to torture babies for fun" can't be merely a matter of personal preference. To say that that behavior is wrong is not to say that we merely find it unpleasant; rather, we are expressing a conviction about the moral order of the world, assenting to a moral fact. And the existence of this moral order leads to an acknowledgment of the Creator of this moral order.
But now apparently Sparks' revulsion at some of the things God commands His people to do in the OT is nothing more than his own personal sense that those aspects of God's character are 'unpleasant'. Have we shifted back to subjectivism in ethics, in order to evade the challenge of accounting for God commanding actions which we would label moral atrocities in any other context?
"You hate God's character. You hate God. You would rather make up a god for yourself and worship that, because it gives you warm fuzzies."
So apparently distress over the moral atrocities allegedly commanded by God in the OT is nothing more than a case of deprivation of warm fuzzies. The slaughter of men, women and children should have all the moral weight of a Monday morning downer.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete"But now apparently Sparks' revulsion at some of the things God commands His people to do in the OT is nothing more than his own personal sense that those aspects of God's character are 'unpleasant'."
Although this objection wasn't directed at me, I'd point out that Sparks' reaction goes beyond revulsion. Rather, he offers that as a rationale to reject the inspiration of Scripture and even a justification for wholesale apostasy.
JD Walters said:
ReplyDelete"Have we shifted back to subjectivism in ethics, in order to evade the challenge of accounting for God commanding actions which we would label moral atrocities in any other context?"
Me:
"…because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8)
JD Walters said:
"So apparently distress over the moral atrocities allegedly commanded by God in the OT is nothing more than a case of deprivation of warm fuzzies. The slaughter of men, women and children should have all the moral weight of a Monday morning downer."
Me:
Sorry JD, the command given by God in Deuteronomy was holy and just, and the worldwide destruction outlined in the Apocalypse will be holy and just as well.
JD,
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind the context of this debate. According to its mission statement, "The BioLogos Foundation is a group of Christians, many of whom are professional scientists, biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, pastors, and educators...We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God."
Can Sparks honestly say that?
JD Walters said...
ReplyDelete"So apparently distress over the moral atrocities allegedly commanded by God in the OT is nothing more than a case of deprivation of warm fuzzies."
"Allegedly"? Does this mean you deny the verbal inspiration of the OT?
Yet Jesus constantly appeals to the OT. So do you have a different view of OT inspiration than Jesus had?
"Have we shifted back to subjectivism in ethics, in order to evade the challenge of accounting for God commanding actions which we would label moral atrocities in any other context?"
Doesn't Sparks evade the challenge by simply denying the inspiration of Scripture?
Steve, the 'allegedly' was just a qualifier for the purposes of discussion. It's pretty clear that God commanded the Israelites to do some pretty horrible things. And I'm not denying the inspiration of Scripture either, even though I haven't given much time to clarifying that concept. I've been too preoccupied with general apologetics issues to address many higher doctrinal issues like the Trinity, inspiration of Scripture, predestination, etc.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so concerned about defending Sparks himself, but Jonah's comment struck me the wrong way. Granted that revulsion at God's commanding moral atrocities (ok, let me qualify: actions that in any other context we would call atrocities) is not sufficient grounds for apostasy, at the very least I think we should recognize the apparent inconsistency between the moral values and judgments which the moral argument appeals to, and the actions of the Israelites as commanded by God in the OT. How can we point to the Nazi death camps as a paradigm case of horrific evil, and not recognize what God was commanding Israel to do as such?
I've read in some of your other posts that it is proper to express revulsion at some of what God commands, with the understanding that God intends and will bring about a greater good as a result. I think that's fair. What I take issue with is Jonah dismissing Sparks' reaction as merely a personal distaste for what God commanded the Israelites to do. That is not only inconsistent with the moral argument, but reveals a moral flippancy that I find deeply disturbing.
The only legitimate response to what God commanded in the OT, I think, is deep revulsion combined with an 'and yet' trust that God meant to bring about some greater good. Somehow, in a sense we can't fully understand, those actions qualify as just. But this conclusion can only be reached with the awareness that, by all appearances, these actions are contrary to the moral commands that God intends human beings to live by.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete"I've been too preoccupied with general apologetics issues to address many higher doctrinal issues like the Trinity, inspiration of Scripture, predestination, etc."
That's fine.
Since this is a complex and weighty issue, I'll probably do a separate post tomorrow to address your remaining comments.
All of this has provoked this brief thought from my brainium.
ReplyDelete(Brief can be good, too.)
Kent Sparks: "But those matters aside, please know that my views are NOT those of Biologos nor of Pete Enns. I don't see how what I've written can occasion any criticism of either."
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the (obvious) point.
Let me post the following again so that you might eventually "see" how what you've written merits the justified criticism of both BioLogos and Enns:
"Enns failure to instruct, or failure to correct, or failure to object to Sparks is very telling.
It's very telling that Enns would rather take issue with non-theistic evolutionist Christians than to take issue with the damaging remarks of fellow Biologos member Ken Sparks.
Shame on Enns."
JD WALTERS:
ReplyDelete"The only legitimate response to what God commanded in the OT, I think, is deep revulsion combined with an 'and yet' trust that God meant to bring about some greater good. Somehow, in a sense we can't fully understand, those actions qualify as just. But this conclusion can only be reached with the awareness that, by all appearances, these actions are contrary to the moral commands that God intends human beings to live by."
Concerning this comment, does God ever give the command for someone to sin?
Steve, You say that BIOLOGOS, Enns, Sparks, are attempting to justify their infidelity, and you imply that they hate God, and that is the REASON behind the BIOLOGOS website.
ReplyDeleteNow read Sparks and Enns' books as listed on my list of five books every Christian apologist ought to read, and deal with the rational arguments that first raised questions in each of their minds. They did not start out with a wish to justify any sort of infidelity. They studied the questions that a wide range of scholars have been asking about the OT, and began asking their own questions in each of their books.
Please stick to addressing the questions in their books.
EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:
ReplyDelete"Now read Sparks and Enns' books as listed on my list of five books every Christian apologist ought to read, and deal with the rational arguments that first raised questions in each of their minds."
i) You're such an incorrigible fool. I reviewed Pete's book when it first came out.
ii) You're in no position to dictate to Christians what books we ought to read.
iii) It's clear from his articles at BioLogos that Sparks is rehashing stock objections which have been around for decades. Nothing I haven't dealt with before.
iv) The fact that an apostate like you is vouching for their motives has about as much credibility as a character reference from the Old Serpent.