Is truth knowable?

Anne Elliott graciously sought to call me out on some of the things I wrote on Wednesday. Not only did she write a brief comment on my post, but she wrote a full-blown post on her own blog.

I really appreciate her taking the time. It provided me a wonderful opportunity to better understand some of the things that have disturbed her (and many of her readers, I'm sure!), and it spurred me to dig deeper and seek to speak more clearly about issues I've been groping toward for too long.

Understanding the Bible: Can we just read it? Or do we need to interpret it?

I thought my comments about the distinction between the Bible itself and theology would be rather self-evident. But I guess not.

I posted a comment that echoed these thoughts on a blog post that expressed disapproval of Dr. Jay Wile's defense of Dr. Peter Enns against what Wile sees as an unfair attack by Ken Ham.

Anne Elliott wrote,

I’ve been watching with great interest some interaction online between Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis), Jay Wile ([author of] Apologia’s high school science curriculum), and Peter Enns (the author of Peace Hill Press/Well-Trained Mind’s “Bible” curriculum):

• I’ve been thrilled with Ken Ham’s stand. However, just yesterday Ken Ham has been dis-invited from several homeschooling conventions, just because he has taken the same stand I certainly would, in favor of God’s Word!
• Jay Wile, author of Apologia’s high school science curriculum, has been taking Peter Enns’ side. He has been sharply criticizing Ken Ham, and I’m actually rather shocked by this. To be honest, I don’t know that I want to use Jay Wile’s high-school science curriculum any more.

Based on some further comments by readers, I responded,

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.