Open for Comments

Posted on July 10th, 2010 by Pete Enns

For a number of complex reasons, the most important of which being “I feel like it,” I am opening up comments on my posts after a two-year self-absorbed imposition of silence. We’ll see how this goes. I will do my best to interact, and don’t take it personally if I don’t. Do take it personally, however, if you post a rude, irrelevant, obnoxious comment and I remove it with much fanfare.

All kidding aside, we are engaging issues of ultimate meaning and purpose. Hearing from each other seems like a good idea.


Tags: Uncategorized // 14 Comments »

← Older Comments
  • Jeff

    Hello, I’m a relative newcomer to your site, but I’ve managed to make a fair dent into your articles, reviews, and responses to others’ critiques of your work on both here and at BioLogos relating to the maddeningly interwoven subjects of theistic evolution, inerrancy, and the Westminster Standards.

    I thought I would ask if you had any thoughts or suggestions for younger members of the PCA who plan to be actively involved in the denomination in the longterm, but who also lean towards the BioLogos viewpoint on Genesis and the Flood. How should we best convince our Brothers and Sisters in Christ that we still affirm the Westminster Standards, in spite of a vastly different viewpoint on the historical intent of Genesis 1 (and related discussion thereof within the NT)?

    I’m a 25 year-old law student and member of a small PCA church within a relatively short driving distance from the Creationism Museum in northern Kentucky. The museum has had a profound effect upon way that evangelical churches in my area–including mine–approach these issues. Namely, six-day creationism is approaching the status of orthodoxy. If I am judging the atmosphere correctly at this point, I should be worried that I wouldn’t be allowed to teach Sunday School to kids–let alone assume a higher leadership position in the distant future–if I admitted to agreeing substantially with BioLogos and a more reserved definition of inerrancy than, say, the Chicago Statement articulates.

    I utterly love my church, its leadership, and the PCA, and have made a point not to try to change other believers’ minds on these controversies. But the more local commentary I see about national figures involved in these issues (such as yourself and Dr. Waltke), the more nervous I become.

    I hope this is the appropriate forum for such a question/comment, and forgive the lack of brevity. May the Lord continue to bless you and your work.

  • http://peterennsonline.com/ Pete Enns

    Jeff,

    You may be in a tough spot. There are younger members of the PCA who are also theistic evolutionists, I am sure, but listing them here would likely cause them tremendous grief. Tim Keller has publicly expressed his acceptance of evolution, but he is not “younger” of course.

    As you can see from the Waltke incident, the PCA may not be a good place to have that conversation given the climate of the denomination. I think your concerns about your personal situation are well-founded. The shame is that there are probably a lot of people like you out there who love their church, the denomination, want to be an active part of it, don’t want to force their views on anyone else, but who would still have to face some severe scrutiny if they said, (1) I accept evolution, (2) I think it is consistent with the Westminster Standards, (3) I want to be an active part of this denomination.

    The problem you would face is #2. Evolution and the WCF are not compatible if one expects the “letter” of the WCF to have the last word on contemporary issue not envisioned in the 17th century. There is at least a critical mass of leaders in the PCA read the WCF just that way. In other words, the problem you might face very quickly is the recurring problem of the nature of confessionalism in the PCA: HOW does one read the confession.

    If you are interested, look under the I&I tab above for some reflections on my book and the Reformed world. The issue there apply here.

    • Jeff

      Thanks very much for your quick and helpful reply. I'll look forward to reading up more on this and keeping a close eye on the denominational climate in the coming years. I suspect that this will come to a head eventually (or perhaps soon) on a national basis. I pray that the PCA survives such an event intact and stronger than before. God bless.

    • Stephen

      Oh but Pete…if one understand how the WCF is authoritative (err, um, “binding”) and therefore to be interpreted for the church in the way people do who say evolution is incompatible with the WCF…then I would think the Framework Hypothesis would reside outside the bounds of the WCF too. But I guess selective engagement and use of methods and standards is acceptable policy in the PCA ;)

      Glad to see you opened up comments. I hope all is well down there in PA.

← Older Comments
« »