The scandal of the evangelical heart and mind

[Grazer]

What rocked Rachel’s faith wasn’t the failure of the evangelical intellectual project, but the “failure to maintain emotional integrityâ€â€“seen, for example, in the emotional detachment some show toward Canaanite genocide in the Bible. Why are so many Evangelicals “fine†with it? Because it’s in the Bible. End of discussion.

This is why I love Peter Enns and Rachel Held Evans. They ask questions, they don't hold to "there are certain questions you can't ask" The Canaanite genocide is a great example. If this was in any other set of books, Christians would be all over it with their condemnation. But because its the bible, its either ok or something that can't be questioned. I love this bit from Dr. Enns;

"The real scandal of the Evangelical mind is that we are not allowed to use it"

I so see what he means. Rachel Evans comes at it from a more emotional perspective;

"about how my objections to this paradigm represented unrepentant pride and a capitulation to humanism that placed too much inherent value on my fellow human beings; about how my intuitive sense of love and morality and right and wrong is so corrupted by my sin nature I cannot trust it.

They said all of this without so much of a glimmer of a tear, and it scared me to death. It nearly scared me out of the Church"

On the thread I started about questions from teenagers, people seem to have been horrified at the thought that I might teach something that went against tradition or their views. The sheer thought that I might actually engage with questions from a different angle is getting people angry. Christians seem so detached from the world, hiding behind the "in the world not of it" and "lean not on your own understanding" walls. If tradition leads us not to question mass genocide, doesn't lead us to be a little concerned, then tradition needs to be challenged.

So why are people so afraid to question? Why can't I question the canaanite genocide? How do you respond to the points raised by the Dr Enns and Rachel Evans?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...vangelical-mind-we-are-not-allowed-to-use-it/

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/scandal-evangelical-heart

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[gr8grace]

What rocked Rachel’s faith wasn’t the failure of the evangelical intellectual project, but the “failure to maintain emotional integrity”–seen, for example, in the emotional detachment some show toward Canaanite genocide in the Bible. Why are so many Evangelicals “fine” with it? Because it’s in the Bible. End of discussion.

This is why I love Peter Enns and Rachel Held Evans. They ask questions, they don't hold to "there are certain questions you can't ask" The Canaanite genocide is a great example. If this was in any other set of books, Christians would be all over it with their condemnation. But because its the bible, its either ok or something that can't be questioned. I love this bit from Dr. Enns;

"The real scandal of the Evangelical mind is that we are not allowed to use it"

I so see what he means. Rachel Evans comes at it from a more emotional perspective;

"about how my objections to this paradigm represented unrepentant pride and a capitulation to humanism that placed too much inherent value on my fellow human beings; about how my intuitive sense of love and morality and right and wrong is so corrupted by my sin nature I cannot trust it.

They said all of this without so much of a glimmer of a tear, and it scared me to death. It nearly scared me out of the Church"

On the thread I started about questions from teenagers, people seem to have been horrified at the thought that I might teach something that went against tradition or their views. The sheer thought that I might actually engage with questions from a different angle is getting people angry. Christians seem so detached from the world, hiding behind the "in the world not of it" and "lean not on your own understanding" walls. If tradition leads us not to question mass genocide, doesn't lead us to be a little concerned, then tradition needs to be challenged.

So why are people so afraid to question? Why can't I question the canaanite genocide? How do you respond to the points raised by the Dr Enns and Rachel Evans?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...vangelical-mind-we-are-not-allowed-to-use-it/

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/scandal-evangelical-heart

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

I did not much care for their articles. They focus on Gods mercy and Grace and forget about His Justice and righteousness, and His eternal punishment for wickedness.(unbelief)

I believe we can Question this subject and have every right too. I have questioned it also.

I think that they start with a doubt(like she said in her article) and start with the wrong premise.....this is unfair and I doubt if our God is Fair.(emotionalism)

As Christians we need to look at in the context of Gods character and nature. ...This sure looks unfair, but I know you are Just and Righteous, so how is this Just?

Deut 9:5 Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going to posses their land, but because of the WICKEDNESS of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out before you.....

Why is the Lord driving them out of their Land?

Deut 20:18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their ABOMINABLE practices that they have done for their gods,and so you sin against the Lord your God.

So what were some of those abominable things?
Deut 12:31 You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for EVERY ABOMINABLE thing that the Lord HATES they have done for their gods, for they even BURN their their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

In Lev 18:3 The Lord is telling the people not to practice what the land of canaan was practicing...What were they doing in that land?

Lev 18:6-23 incest,lying with animals,homosexuality,adultery.

So did they ever have a chance to repent?
Jer 18:8 And if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.

The land of Canaan had 40 plus years to repent of its ways, the whole world heard of the Lord when He led the Jews out of Egypt. Even Rahab in Joshua 2:11 had heard of the Fame of the Lord so the Land of Canaan had heard also. Plus they had 7 days of Joshua encamped around the city walls to surrender.(repent) This is analogous to intense discipline, they had no way out and the only option was to surrender(repent)

Just another thought...would have we objected if God came in and supernaturally destroyed the Germans in WWII, I dont think that many people would have objected to that.

The Canaanites were WWII Germans on steroids.

And based on the Character and nature of our God He had all the Kids and believers taken care of, He would rather see them in paradise instead of being burned at the stake by their parents and fellow human beings.

 

[Grazer]

But God ordered to wipe out everyone then later on he says women could be taken as spoils of war

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[gr8grace]

But God ordered to wipe out everyone then later on he says women could be taken as spoils of war

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

We have to be careful to which battle we are speaking of, because there are different options placed before Israel according to which area and cities they are attacking.

Deut 20:16-17.....shows the inherited lands, and those are the places that they are to save none alive.

Pertaining to cities that are not in the inherited lands they are to save woman and children. Deut 20:10-15 and the meaning of spoils of war is not in the traditional sense of MAN.

God specifically says that the people who are captured are to do labor Deut 20:11.....But offer peace first!

 

[Sinthesis]

Evangelical dogma serves as a collective comfort zone, from which individuals inside can view a scary, sinful world. The fear of acknowledging the possibility of legitimate views of our world from outside the evangelical zone, suggests a dependence on dogma as protection from the real world, rather than Christ.

Jhn 16:33 - These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
​

How should we view the Canaanite genocide? Intellectually and emotionally in its correct historical, theological, prophetic, and redemptive context. A satisfactory answer probably resides just outside the boundaries of evangelical dogma.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You embrace Enns because his thinking appears to be new, enriching and valid. You would be wrong.

Enns insists that Evangelicals must adjust their thinking about the Bible to conform to the anti-supernaturalism of unbelieving scholars. Enns says we must dialectically synthesize conservative and liberal positions to arrive at a new doctrine of Scripture that embrace what he claims is the "messiness" of the Bible's "messiness." He alleges it is filled with contradictions that cannot be resolved. In his book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, that is supposedly about "inspiration", Enns includes an extensive glossary of key terms and concepts that he employs. Three are conspicuous by their absence: inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility

The "new" doctrine of Scripture he espouses looks very much like the anti-supernaturalism embraced and defended by the signers of the Auburn Affirmation of 1924 found here. When it comes to heresy, there is nothing new under the sun. Enns adopts the erroneous concept that Moses (or whoever he will accept as the author of Genesis) "created" Adam. Enns ignores the righteousness of God and chooses to focus on what he arrogantly calls His "inhumanity" in bringing judgment on irredeemable nations. He believes man has greater authority to interpret God's word than God has in providing the word to us. In short, he believes in a "fusion" of all man's beliefs to come to a consensus view of who God is.

God has told us who He is. We don't need Enns or anyone else trying to tell us that our perception of Him is wrong. God's word makes Him very clear to anyone who wants to know Him. That Enns thinks he knows better than God is the height of arrogance, hubris -- and condemnation for himself.

 

[P31Woman]

Yet another lie lanched at the Evangelical Church. Yes this guy Enns knows exactly who he is attacking. He HATES the Evangelical Chruch....one glance at this site can prove that point. It's not about loving God for his guy it's about hating someone else.


We are not only ALLOWED to ask the hard questions we are encouraged to beginning at an early age!

I expect those types of questions from anyone new to the faith and the children in the church.

Most of us believe what we profess and that is WHY we have our Children in Church. Parents have the right to protect their children from FALSE teachers. Not only the right but it's the only logical thing a sane and loving parent would do.

 

[P31Woman]

Comment Policy

Read that. It's at bottom of Rachel's blog. If she does not like what you post it get's deleted. She can dish it out but refuses to take it.

 

[ivdavid]

Grazer,

Since there's a lot of emotionalism involved in this context, could I ask you to ponder upon a quick question.

Do you have an issue accepting the possibility that there might be millions who are going to perish in the eternal lakes of fire where each of these were people who perhaps paid their taxes, took care of stray puppies, fed the poor, had a fulfilling life in this world till they passed away peacefully after their 80s - but who never believed in God ?

 

[Grazer]

Enns probably does have issues with the evangelical church, Evans probably does have issues with fundamentalism. They're not alone in that and these groups aren't afraid to attack others. Perhaps they need to look at themselves as much as you claim Enns and Evans need to.

I personally think that Enns and Evans are right in terms of they're prepared to ask questions. To me, both seem more interested in that.

 

[Grazer]

Grazer,

Since there's a lot of emotionalism involved in this context, could I ask you to ponder upon a quick question.

Do you have an issue accepting the possibility that there might be millions who are going to perish in the eternal lakes of fire where each of these were people who perhaps paid their taxes, took care of stray puppies, fed the poor, had a fulfilling life in this world till they passed away peacefully after their 80s - but who never believed in God ?

That's a great question. I'm looking at what the bible says about hell and I'm not sure about the lakes of fire. I have no issues with the concept of hell or people going there, just not sure on the rest.

 

[ivdavid]

I have no issues with the concept of hell or people going there

Can we realistically expect that one who expects 'Emotional Integrity' just like Rachel Evans, could perhaps gasp at your above statement and assume you "said all of this without so much of a glimmer of a tear, that it scares them to death. That it nearly scared them out of the Church"?

How about one who emphatically disbelieves in the very concept of hell - and asks us who believe, "Why we are 'fine' with it? Because it’s in the Bible? End of discussion?" What should our response be to such?

You see, the skeptic unbeliever could term the concept of hell and people going there as a "mass human genocide" carried out by God. What should our Christian response be?

Now, I am quite confident to presume that you do obviously know I don't really mean the above questions as directed to you in a debate format - it's just a discussion that tries to explore both sides of the coin.

 

[Grazer]

Can we realistically expect that one who expects 'Emotional Integrity' just like Rachel Evans, could perhaps gasp at your above statement and assume you "said all of this without so much of a glimmer of a tear, that it scares them to death. That it nearly scared them out of the Church"?

How about one who emphatically disbelieves in the very concept of hell - and asks us who believe, "Why we are 'fine' with it? Because it’s in the Bible? End of discussion?" What should our response be to such?

You see, the skeptic unbeliever could term the concept of hell and people going there as a "mass human genocide" carried out by God. What should our Christian response be?

Now, I am quite confident to presume that you do obviously know I don't really mean the above questions as directed to you in a debate format - it's just a discussion that tries to explore both sides of the coin.

I said I had no issues with the concept, I didn't say the fact people would end up there wouldn't make me sad. I take Evans's comments as directed at those who seem almost happy people will end up in hell.

 

[ivdavid]

I didn't say the fact people would end up there wouldn't make me sad.

I wouldn't imply it either. That's why I intentionally said "one could assume..."

Anyway, the argument was never meant to be personal.

I take Evans's comments as directed at those who seem almost happy people will end up in hell.

Well, the blog also seemed directed at calvinists in general - is it your contention that calvinists in general are almost happy that people will end up in hell? It was directed at the person who was quoted first - John Piper. And yet that message of his ended with ' Therefore the word we have from the Lord today is, "Love your enemy. Pray for those who abuse you. Lay your life down for the world. Don't kill in order to spread the gospel, but die to spread it." '. Let's not vilify anybody just to uphold a position. I still think Evan's need for emotional integrity must be shared by all - and I believe that it's very possible that that is the case in most of them who didn't seem that way to her.

 

[P31Woman]

Enns probably does have issues with the evangelical church, Evans probably does have issues with fundamentalism. They're not alone in that and these groups aren't afraid to attack others. Perhaps they need to look at themselves as much as you claim Enns and Evans need to.

I personally think that Enns and Evans are right in terms of they're prepared to ask questions. To me, both seem more interested in that.

What are the "only" concerete answers Enns and Evans won't oppose?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Enns probably does have issues with the evangelical church, Evans probably does have issues with fundamentalism. They're not alone in that and these groups aren't afraid to attack others. Perhaps they need to look at themselves as much as you claim Enns and Evans need to.

What Enns and Evans have a problem with is biblical truth. You, as do they, refer to the evangelical church as though it has strayed from that truth, when the reality is, the liberal church movement, which fails to preach judgment and the need for righteousness, is the culprit in identifying those who have strayed. Enns and Evans are chief proponents of rewriting the Bible, taking only the parts they want to believe and trashing the rest. Are you in that camp as well?

 

[P31Woman]

On the thread I started about questions from teenagers, people seem to have been horrified at the thought that I might teach something that went against tradition or their views.

That's a great question. I'm looking at what the bible says about hell and I'm not sure about the lakes of fire. I have no issues with the concept of hell or people going there, just not sure on the rest.

I said I had no issues with the concept, I didn't say the fact people would end up there wouldn't make me sad. I take Evans's comments as directed at those who seem almost happy people will end up in hell.

As far as parents (me) getting angry. It's not because someone ask quesitons....it's because someone who appears to be desiring some Leadership Role in my kid's life not knowing if a hell exist and only being "sad" is it does.

I know hell exist and would spend an eternity there to keep my child out.

 

[cyberjosh]

What rocked Rachel’s faith wasn’t the failure of the evangelical intellectual project, but the “failure to maintain emotional integrity”–seen, for example, in the emotional detachment some show toward Canaanite genocide in the Bible. Why are so many Evangelicals “fine” with it? Because it’s in the Bible. End of discussion.

What do you mean "fine" with it? No one has to like the outcome of God's judgments or the consequences that man's sin brings upon itself and others. Should I be "fine" with the fact that Jesus was crucified on the cross unjustly (and yet paradoxically it was just because Jesus submitted to it willingly and it brought justice to all) and was violently nailed to the cross for me? Or that it "pleased the LORD to bruise him" and that God "has put him to grief" (Isaiah 53:10)? Don't confuse sober acceptance of something with apathy toward grievous reports.

Also would sending sinful unrepentant souls to Hell be considered a spiritual "genocide" of sorts? Does God's heart not burn in sorrow for such people though he must carry out justice (Ezekiel 18:32; Matthew 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9)?

"Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die." (Ezekiel 18:25-28)

 

[cyberjosh]

That's a great question. I'm looking at what the bible says about hell and I'm not sure about the lakes of fire. I have no issues with the concept of hell or people going there, just not sure on the rest.

Okay it looks like someone brought up the issue of Hell already. Hell really is just a holding area for the wicked until the final judgment when they will be eternally thrown into the Lake of Fire (specifically those "not found written in the Book of Life" Rev. 20:15), which is unspeakably tragic and made worse by the fact that the Lake of Fire was not originally designed for humans but rather for Satan and his Angels (Demons).

"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41).

"The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:13-15)

 

[cyberjosh]

Also just a word of warning about Peter Enns. People appear to like Enns because he seems scholarly, but that is not the real issue. There are many conservative Christian scholars who are quite scholarly as well, but the issue is what Enns believes. I watched a lecture by him once on Paul's view of Adam and sin in Romans and he concluded that Paul was wrong as to why the problem of sin was so great that Jesus had to come. Enns denies original sin as being passed down to us by Adam, which is exactly contrary to what Paul says. Enns is not orthodox in his beliefs. I know he seems sincere but sincerity is not a measure of whether one has correct and truthful interpretations or not.

A very learned and able peer of Enns, D.A. Carson, reviewed one of Enns books titled "Inspiration and Incarnation". In Carson's review he points out how Enns (whether though neglect or design) seems to only present questions to call the interpretation of the Bible into doubt and does not offer any kind of positive conclusion of his own or synthesis. You can read the review on this page [here]. Scroll down to the second part of that article labeled "B. Peter Enns". I recommend reading the whole article if you have time but I will summarize with quotes below. DA Carson largely illuminates, rather clearly, the questionable motives (or at least the questionable practical results) of Enns critiques of the Bible and Evangelicalism.

Carson says at the beginning, "[Enns] is not trying to make a positive statement about the nature of Scripture, except incidentally; rather, he is trying to refute what he judges to be the failure of evangelicals to face up to real problems in the nature of the Bible that they tend to skirt."

"Enns is not proposing to solve "Bible difficulties" (his expression, 14). Rather, by focusing on "three problems raised by the modern study of the Old Testament," he hopes to suggest ways in which our conversation can be shifted somewhat".

Summarizing Enns argument, Carson also writes:

"First, Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh, all dealing with creation and the flood, raise the question, 'Is Genesis myth or history?'... Enns argues that the way forward is to refuse to think of 'myth' as a 'made-up' story, but to define myth in 'more generous' terms: myth is 'an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?' (40; the italics are his). "

"In the past, Enns avers, as these documents became available, the sure ground of Scripture was eroded by liberals who argued that these historical contexts unavoidably relativize the Bible, which can no longer be taken as the unique Word of God. But evangelicals, implicitly assuming that "the Bible, being the Word of God, ought to be historically accurate in all its details (since God would not lie or make errors) and unique in its own setting (since God's word is revealed, which implies a specific type of uniqueness)" (47), opted for selective engagement, and embraced evidence that seems to support the biblical text, while retreating from or criticizing "evidence that seems to undercut these assumptions" (47). "

Then under Carson's critique (heading: "(2) Critique"), after summarizing Enns arguments, he writes his response. The best observation Carson makes I think is the following:

"That introduces the first problem: Who are the intended readers? The answer to that question, in the case of this book, must be an integral part of the evaluation. Enns himself, it must be recalled, states that his envisaged readers are the "fair number of Christians who conclude that the contemporary state of biblical scholarship makes an evangelical faith unviable" (13). In other words, granted the historical/literary/archaeological/historical difficulties cast up by "biblical scholarship," how can "evangelical faith"--presumably what evangelical faith says about the Bible--be viable? Taking this at face value, the difficulties should be the "given" in the minds of the envisaged readers, and the book would then either challenge some of those "difficulties" in order to maintain evangelicalism's stance on the Bible, or it would accommodate the difficulties and provide a more sophisticated understanding of "evangelical faith," or perhaps a revision of it. Yet in the three substantive chapters, most of the space is devoted instead to convincing the reader that the difficulties Enns isolates are real, and must be taken more seriously by evangelicals than is usually the case. In other words, despite his initial claim that he is writing the book to comfort the disturbed, as it were, the actual performance aims to disturb the comfortable. This makes the book rather difficult to evaluate."

In the end there is no doubt that Enns is rather liberal, despite his intentions or whatever regard he holds the Bible in. It is also troubling to see an attempt to only raise troubling questions and not answer them. I have seen many scholars go down that road and it leads to nothing good. So in a word, I'm just saying to be careful and critical of anything Peter Enns says, as DA Carson ably does in that review.