Pete Enns on "the deep problem Evangelicalism has with evolution"

[pngarrison (Preston Garrison)]

If anyone is still interested in the OP, Scot McKnight at the blog Jesus Creed has been reviewing the 5 contributions to a recent book on views of inerrancy. Dr. Enns was included as the one who doesn’t characterize his view as any kind of inerrancy, and his is one of the chapters which has been reviewed so far.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

I have really enjoyed reading his review. Roger Olson has also had some interesting blogs on inerrancy in the past. ( both are on patheos and also might add that McKnight hosts some writings by rgs on science and faith that are excellent.)

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

Evangelicalism has a deep problem with evolution because Evangelicalism has a deep problem with science, and a serious intellectual deficit.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

Y’ all assume the the problem is with the theology while the real problem is with the philosophy which cuts through both th science and the theology.

[Chris_Falter]

@Eddie

I would imagine that a church with eager beavers like that could probably pull out six or eight people every week for a Christian classics study – as long as the readings weren’t too abstruse. I wouldn’t start, for example, with the Summa Theologiae! But there are passages of Kierkegaard, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Lewis, Chesterton, Sayers, and many other authors which would be accessible, with a little help from the leaders, to the person without much philosophical background.

Interesting idea! Can you think of a good anthology for a class of eager beavers? Anyone?

If there isn’t one, maybe you could put one together, Eddie. You seem to have the gifts and background.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

Devotional Classics: Selected readings for individuals and for groups.

Spiritual Classics: Selected readings on the 12 spiritual disciplines

Two anthologies that might fit the bill.

[johnZ]

@Eddie

I think we are likely to err less often if we spend more time studying the Church Fathers, the Creeds, the various Confessions, the writings of the Scholastics and the Reformers, and more generally the history of Christianity.

Possibly. I don’t know of a good study which would verify your claim. But I find it ironic how the “educated” clergy are as likely as any to lead people astray, particularly in the mainstream denominations. It is ironic also how those denominations started to decline first.

In our town, admittedly small, two church buildings recently went up for sale… they were the Anglican and Lutheran, two of the older buildings and traditional groups. All that was left of these two were about half a dozen or nine women who attended and ran the show in each. The Roman Catholic and United, also older groups, are still functioning, although the Roman Catholic tends to have priests imported from the Phillipines. But the Pentecostal, Reformed, Baptist, and Gospel Chapel and Mennonite are holding their own, although they have also had periods of more vigor in the past.

I certainly agree that studying the church fathers etc is a good idea. But it cannot be done as a cold intellectual exercise or it will achieve nothing of value. It must be done from the perspective of understanding each historical icon as a human being who seeks to find his relationship with God. And it must be discovered how they were instruments of God in bringing about the type of kingdom (not of this earth) on earth.

[johnZ]

@Eddie

note that it is precisely in those denominations where one would expect, given their confessional backgrounds, that their clergy would know the Christian classics, that the clergy have never made any effort to teach those Christian classics.

I appreciate your comments here, Eddie. I see you want preachers to teach the classics as a way of bringing an understanding of faith and Christian history. I do not disagree, but my point was that even those who have been taught these classics are sometimes as likely to lead the church astray, since it is the leaders that lead falsely. But maybe it is as you say that it is because they do not pay attention to the history, the classics, and the traditions.

I am all for learning. But in my experience, whether it is learning of the creeds or confessions or the ancient writers and church fathers, this does not by itself solve all the problems. Sometimes it allows certain errors and past injustices to remain barriers to christian fellowship for centuries. A bad context makes such learning have bad results, while a good context will enable good application from such learning.

I appreciate your comments.

[pngarrison (Preston Garrison)]

I liked someone’s comment on one of McKnight’s posts which quoted an apparently common aphorism in the inerrancy debate: “Inerrancy dies a death of a thousand qualifications.” That’s how it seems to me, but I’m not a Biblical scholar or a participant in this seemingly never-ending debate.