Getting to the heart of the matter . . .

I see that some of the issues I have been personally struggling with for years, but far more intensely over the past year-and-two-thirds are now becoming front-and-center in the homeschool world at large. (For a brief glimpse of what I am talking about from my perspective, see my Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation, Part II post from July 21, 2009. I promised, at the end, "to note some places where I think Lamoureux probably failed, adequately, to do all his homework. Or, if he did his homework, he failed, adequately, to express what I believe he should have." --But I never wrote what I promised because I have found myself lacking the knowledge base on which, properly, to build my case.)

But now--as evidenced by my last two posts here in Forbidden Questions--I realize the homeschool world is being engulfed by the issues that disturbed me.

I still wish and want to build my case the way I would like, but I think it would behoove me, at least, to acknowledge from where my great discomfort arises.

On the one hand, I see the kinds of issues being raised by Lamoureux, Enns, the Haarsmas, John Walton and others. I understand the attraction to head toward what they call a "non-concordist" view of Genesis 1-11 and/or--what really bowled me over in Lamoureux's book--a (traditionally non-evangelical) text-critical reading of Scripture . . . a reading that, pretty much as far as I can see, tends to tear a gaping hole in the fabric of biblical authority.

I don't want to follow "another god" (that is no god) or a weakened "gospel" (that is no gospel). I want to pursue the Lord my God with all my heart and soul and mind and strength. I want to teach my children (who are now all adults; but still: I know I teach them even today by my manner of life and the things I say!) . . . --I want to teach my children to rely upon the Word of God.

And I don't see how the teachings of the authors whose names I have mentioned above can particularly help me in any of those regards.

They have helped me acknowledge niggling questions and concerns that have been on my heart and mind. But--so far, anyway--they have provided few if any real solutions to my concerns.

Let me confess that I don't find the hard-edged views of a Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis help me face the difficulties I see.

But I find myself agreeing with people like LeaAnn Garfias when she expresses dismay (to put it mildly!) at the kind of--my words, here!--foolish "wisdom" of Peter Enns when, in a new Bible curriculum he is having published for homeschool consumption, he claims, for example, that sin and grace are “adult concepts” not to be taught to children. [I should note: I am relying on Garfias' direct quotes of Enns as my source. Sadly, I have found, too often, that partisans for one side or another in these arguments will deliberately misquote or leave out significant modifiers that would change my opinion. But assuming Garfias has quoted accurately and without prejudice what Enns says, then I will stand by what I have said and what I am about to say.]

"What should not be emphasized," Enns says, "is the child’s miserable state of sin and the need for a savior."

Fuller lessons concerning sin and grace will come in time, and certainly parents and churches have the responsibility to teach the fullness of what the Bible has to offer. But most young children simply do not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to grasp the adult concepts in the Bible. . . .

Do not allow yourself to be convinced that you are somehow shortchanging your children by not addressing adult concepts at such a young age. . . . I believe in God’s displeasure with sin. But to introduce children to the God of wrath right at the beginning of their lives, without the requisite biblical foundation and before the years of emotional maturity, can actually distort their view of God. . . .

--Telling God’s Story, pp. 33-34, as quoted by Garfias

Really? Foundational concepts of the Gospel--about sin and forgiveness and grace--should be withheld from children?

Similarly (and I have to rely on Garfias' reading of Enns' material, but I have little reason to doubt what she says, here), it disturbs me to read that "Nowhere does Enns claim the Bible is the absolute authority for our faith and practice. Nowhere does Enns claim the Bible is inerrant. Nowhere does he claim the Bible is complete, sufficient, or infallible. . . . I wonder why he would remain silent on these critical issues in his treatise on teaching the Bible. In an area where he should be making positive statements, he says nothing."

Again, from my perspective: Youch!

This, ultimately, is where I find myself parting ways with the hard-core and, especially, non-concordist old-earth creationists.

Back when I first ran into old-earth creationism, I was warned by a young-earth advocate that, by its very nature, any particular old-earth creationist view "is an unstable positon and you will not be able to keep it for long." Different words, but, in essence, the "slippery slope" idea.

I would like to believe that "take" on things is untrue. But I have to confess I am not seeing any old-earth creationists who have confronted the issue of biblical authority in a way that preserves its authority for day to day wisdom and insight.

As Garfias notes, Enns claims,

We need to learn the kinds of issues the Bible addresses so we can learn to ask the questions of the Bible that the Bible is meant to answer. The Bible is not a book on how to invest your money, which political party to join, whether to homeschool, where to go to college, whom to marry, where to live, whether you should buy that car, America as God’s chosen people, or a blueprint for present-day world events. It is not, in other words, a “Christian owner’s manual.” Too many Christians assume that the Bible is the guidebook to address all of life’s questions. But that is not what the Bible is designed to do…

What is not addressed in the Bible are specifically modern situations. There is no Bible verse that will, either directly or indirectly, answer many of the questions that confront Christian families today: When do you begin dating? Is it OK to watch an R-rated movie? What kinds of books should your children read? What sort of education should they receive?

--Enns' emphasis; ibid., pp. 23-24, as quoted by Garfias

Wow! As the author of a pastorally-oriented book about dating (based, I thought on biblical principles!), and as one who studied to become a pastor--who intended to preach for the edification of the flock--I find this kind of claim quite disturbing, to put it mildly!

"There is no Bible verse that will, either directly or indirectly, answer many of the questions that confront Christian families today"? None of the Westminster Confession of Faith's statement (see WCF Chapter 1.6) that "[t]he whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for [God's] glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture"?

What kind of authority, then, do we find in the Bible? Is it merely a book full of nice ideas that, once we understand its true nature, becomes less and less significant in our daily lives--kind of like what I think church history teaches us happened among the American congregationalists who first shifted from strict trinitarian orthodoxy to mild unitarianism and then, eventually, to vague spiritualism and, finally, to fundamental atheism?

Garfias raises many more pertinent questions and concerns about Enns' curriculum. I encourage you to read her detailed and careful analysis.