I realize that Ken Ham being 'uninvited' from the Great Homeschooling Conference has been covered in another thread. Still I think Ken Ham's criticism of Peter Enn, calling his views Liberal Theology is the watershed issue.
Sadly, one of the speakers also listed to give presentations does not believe in a historical Adam or historical Fall (he will also be promoting his “Bible” curriculum for homeschoolers). In fact, what he teaches about Genesis is not just compromising Genesis with evolution, it is outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God. It is an attack on the Word—on Christ.
Ken Ham blog article Another Compromiser Speaking at Home School Convention.
Thanks Mallon for the utube lecture, it was very interesting. He did a very good job outlining the issues involved, However, I'm rather disappointed in his view of the historical aspect of the Genesis account. For an Evangelical to call someones teaching 'Liberal Theology' is very serious, this is what I took away from the lecture.
Dr. Enn talks for a while about how Genesis can be interpreted in such a way that it takes some of the tension away. Then he says that had Genesis been the only obstacle the issue would be solved. The problem is that Paul makes a very direct exposition of the text indicating that the sin and death problem can be traced back to Adam. Two points:
Adam- Disobedience results in sin and death
Christ- Obedience results in righteousness and life.
Paul is said to be an ancient man among others with his own unique view. What Dr. Enn explains is that Paul is 'retexualizing' the account meaning he is not telling us what it meant when written but what it means to us now. He uses the illustration of a Pasteur leaves some things out in order to make the message relevant. He also says that Paul is speaking as a Pasteur not a scholar.
Clearly what Dr. Enn is doing is removing the historicity of the Genesis account. Of course Ken Ham is going to see this as Liberal Theology. Now to be fair he does point out that the Old Testament for Paul was Christ centered. Discusses that the book of Romans is not really about salvation as much as how Jews and Gentiles are brought together under the headship of Christ. Most importantly, it's about how God solved the problem of sin and death.
Then after making some pretty insightful statements emphasizing the theme of Romans he tells us that Paul is using Adam creatively. That's where the warning flags go up. In his synthesis of theology and science the creation of Adam and Adam being the first parent is not true while theologically the problem is sin and death remains a pressing concern. He says that the problem of sin and death are real even if the historical account is not true.
Ken Ham is right, this is Liberal Theology. Removing the historicity of the Scriptures is not just a compromise it's a sell out. The solution for Dr. Enn is to abandon the historical character of the Genesis account and to discount the explicit teaching of Paul as a creative illustration.
This is the
Public Response from Great Homeschool Conventions.
'Dr. Ham was removed for his spirit not for his message'. Calling his remarks 'proud, ungrateful and divisive spirit'. Other Young Earth Creationists are allowed but only if they are not critical of the Convention and other speakers.
I personally am appalled at their reaction, of course Peter Enn's views reflect a Liberal worldview. The Convention goes to great lengths to explain that they are in fact Christian which is beside the point. Liberal Theology is a secular philosophy put in theological terminology and Ken Ham has every right and reason to be critical of it. Points made by the Convention in their response:
- Great Homeschool Conventions is unashamedly Christian.
- One of the core values of our convention is that good people can disagree and still be good people.
- We believe that parent-educators are very capable of making intelligent decisions for themselves and for their family.
- We believe that, whereas debate over ideas is necessary, Christians should not question the integrity, the intelligence, or the salvation of other Christians when debating Biblical issues.
While the Great Homeschool Convention may well be Christian the dismissal of Paul's explicit teaching with regards to Original Sin is not. What is more the historicity of Scripture is not open to some creative retextualization. More importantly, this was not a personal attack, Ken Ham is rejecting the same secular philosophy he always has.
Rejecting a secular philosophy for being extra-biblical is not the same as attacking a persons beliefs. The charge is absurd, the historicity of Scripture is a key doctrinal issue and Ken Ham has every right to take his stand against this encroaching poison pill.
Peter Enn is obviously 'synthesising' Darwinian evolution with Biblical theism by dismissing the historicity of the Scriptures. This is a dangerous doctrinal abdication of essential Biblical theism. After hearing his lecture, which is really not all that bad, I have to agree with Ken Ham.
He accepts what the secular world teaches concerning evolution and millions of years, and it is so obvious this determines how he approaches the Bible. He does not have the same view of inspiration as I do. In fact, he doesn’t have the biblical view of inspiration: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16).
To understand Peter Enns’s approach to Genesis and Romans (which will shock you), you need to watch his lecture given recently at Westmont College. (Lecture available in the OP, Ken Ham blog article linked and cited above)
Ken Ham did the right thing is taking his stand on the historicity of Scripture and the inspiration of the Word of God. This lecture is classic Liberal Theology commingled with Evangelical Theology. Ken Ham was right to warn people of it's dangerous content.
Grace and peace,
Mark
