On being a current apologist: A response to Randy Hardman

[Apologiaphoenix]

Is it the case that we too often have a tool of pride? http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/20...randy-hardman/

[KingsGambit]

I've profited from a lot of what Pete Enns has written in the past, but I honestly am wondering what has been up with him lately. It seems like he is taking every opportunity to throw apologetics under the bus (one of his recent books decried "cheap apologetics", saying that believing the resurrection was just a matter of faith) and questioning anything without having anything positive saying to those struggling. I remember reading one commenter on one of his blogs on doubt who was troubled and asked something like "how do you know?" and he just aid "you don't". He may see this as personal honesty, but this is pastoral dynamite.

[jpholding]

Enns does that because he's an intellectual lightweight who can't handle serious argumentation. It's what the likes of him do when they're in over their heads.

Randal Rauser's of that school also.

[whag]

Enns does that because he's an intellectual lightweight who can't handle serious argumentation. It's what the likes of him do when they're in over their heads.

Randal Rauser's of that school also.

Says the YEC who makes apologetics cartoons.

[Cerebrum123]

Says the YEC who makes apologetics cartoons.

Other than a few issues related to his knowledge base he doesn't argue for YEC(solid dome sky canard, and flat earth canard are the only ones I can think of that he does argue against). Secondly, the format given is not a reason to be dismissive of the work. Or are you also one of those people that claim cartoons are "childish"? So, basically, your comment is completely off base here.

[whag]

I've profited from a lot of what Pete Enns has written in the past, but I honestly am wondering what has been up with him lately. It seems like he is taking every opportunity to throw apologetics under the bus (one of his recent books decried "cheap apologetics", saying that believing the resurrection was just a matter of faith) and questioning anything without having anything positive saying to those struggling. I remember reading one commenter on one of his blogs on doubt who was troubled and asked something like "how do you know?" and he just aid "you don't". He may see this as personal honesty, but this is pastoral dynamite.

Maybe it's better to be honest than worry about pastoral dynamite. Anti-evolution apologetics are pastoral dynamite of a different kind, but few pastors care about the consequences of teaching kindergarten teleology.

[KingsGambit]

Maybe it's better to be honest than worry about pastoral dynamite. Anti-evolution apologetics are pastoral dynamite of a different kind, but few pastors care about the consequences of teaching kindergarten teleology.

Jesus said that to let little ones stumble was one of the worst things one could do. When somebody is seriously struggling, especially given the importance of religion in people's lives, a facile one sentence dismissal indicating that one's questions aren't worthy of interaction (and this particular issue had nothing to do with evolution IIRC) isn't what you do.

[KingsGambit]

I may add that I don't think Enns is personally unintelligent, but he has come to be extremely dismissive of positions with which he disagrees. His interactions and essay in the recent Five Views on Inerrancy gave me the impression that he simply did not want to grapple with the positions of the other four participants as they were unworthy of consideration. He also seems to have been moving toward reflective spirituality/meditation type of Christianity. I'm hesitant to be critical of this because it has such a pedigree in the history of the church, but combined with the rest of what he's written, I wonder if there are shades of "give up thinking, just turn to God" involved.

[whag]

Jesus said that to let little ones stumble was one of the worst things one could do. When somebody is seriously struggling, especially given the importance of religion in people's lives, a facile one sentence dismissal indicating that one's questions aren't worthy of interaction (and this particular issue had nothing to do with evolution IIRC) isn't what you do.

Surely the context of Jesus' era and culture should be considered before crudely applying it to Enns.

Maybe he's perceived a haughty certainty in apologetics of late and thinks apologetics should move away from that and exercise the faith muscle. He's definitely seen that haughty certainty in anti-evolution apologetics, being on the staff of BioLogos.

He takes a lot of flack from people in his own faith group--a tiresome and heady thing to deal with.

I may add that I don't think Enns is personally unintelligent, but he has come to be extremely dismissive of positions with which he disagrees. His interactions and essay in the recent Five Views on Inerrancy gave me the impression that he simply did not want to grapple with the positions of the other four participants as they were unworthy of consideration. He also seems to have been moving toward reflective spirituality/meditation type of Christianity. I'm hesitant to be critical of this because it has such a pedigree in the history of the church, but combined with the rest of what he's written, I wonder if there are shades of "give up thinking, just turn to God" involved.

Perhaps he's simply lost interest in claiming certain knowledge, which comes across as arrogant in this era and culture (and may very well defeat the purpose). You're not credited for having "certain knowledge" but for faith, and maybe that was Enn's point?

[jpholding]

Says the YEC who makes apologetics cartoons.

Your point being what, moron? That you have nothing worthwhile to say?

Learn to define pistis properly -- it's in accord with, not contrary to, the expression of certainty -- and learn that "Enns" is not a possessive.

[Apologiaphoenix]

http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/20...randy-hardman/

[whag]

Your point being what, moron? That you have nothing worthwhile to say?

Learn to define pistis properly -- it's in accord with, not contrary to, the expression of certainty -- and learn that "Enns" is not a possessive.

You got my point. He actually bothered to think through the science and still remain a Christian, which takes a lot of smarts.

[JonathanL]

You got my point. He actually bothered to think through the science and still remain a Christian, which takes a lot of smarts.

The implication being of course that anyone who does not remain a Christian after "thinking through" the science isn't as smart.

[jpholding]

You got my point. He actually bothered to think through the science and still remain a Christian, which takes a lot of smarts.

In other words, you actually had no point of any relevance or worth to this discussion. Thank you.

[whag]

The implication being of course that anyone who does not remain a Christian after "thinking through" the science isn't as smart.

The inverse implication is that JP and the YEC creationists are dumb. That doesn't work for you either, so let's just say that TE requires some facility at thinking epistemologically.