Peter EnnsBesprekingen

I've enjoyed and learned something from every Pete Enns book I've read, and this is no different! He delves into how our perspective on God has changed over the centuries and what that means for us and the Bible. Particularly focuses on the Bible as a tool to teach us wisdom, which I think is a wise (lol) approach!

I just read this, but I feel like I need to read it again for everything to sink in. As accessible as the book is, and it's often humorous as well, the ideas are challenging and will require further thought.
The author makes good points about keeping in mind time and culture when reading the Bible and not just seeing it as a rule book and trying to iron out/explain away inconsistencies.

The Bible—from back to front—is the story of God told from the limited point of view of real people living at a certain place and time.

He later says

These ancient writers had an adequate understanding of God for them in their time, but not for all time—and if we take that to heart, we will actually be in a better position to respect these ancient voices and see what they have to say rather than whitewashing the details and making up "explanations" to ease our stress.

Covering a variety of problem passages, he always comes back to his main point that "an owner's manual approach to the Bible doesn't work."
I picked this up because I'm re-reading the bible for the first time in years (I have one of those read-it-in-a-year versions—I'm increasingly skeptical of this approach, but I'll probably stick with it until I'm through), and there is quite a lot that bothers me, especially in the Old Testament. As a result, this book is my second foray this year into biblical scholarship, and I thought it made a lot of sense. That doesn't mean I'm on board with everything he says, but I will probably pick up more of his work, and that of others, as I look for answers.

Interesting, but more geared toward American protestant sects. The chapter titles were more provocative than the chapter themselves.

Started out good and then it just fails. The problem is Biblical literacy is abysmal in this country. Too many people are told what to read and how to read it and how to interpret it. Too many abdicate their brains for the pastor's word. And they take that word as law.

Especially when Enns got to the New Testament, I felt he was more interested in scrapping the Bible rather than understanding it as a whole. It became everything is just a fairytale rather than hard truths. And you wonder why there are over 40000 Protestant denominations in the US alone. Everyone can interpret and everyone thinks their interpretation is the correct one. The Christian Church in the US is failing and authors like Enns are helping it along.

A really lovely and helpful take on how to understand and wrestle with the Bible—or any book of scripture. There are parts of this book that are a tad cheesy. And to be sure, some may not agree with Enns’ approach or conclusions. But this is a welcome approach that allows you to confront and reconcile the Bible with history and a modern understanding of God and religion.

Enns is a biblical scholar and does a masterful job of explaining various topics and the context behind biblical stories and history in a straightforward, easy to understand way. He doesn’t shy away from acknowledging the “hard parts” of the Bible, including those parts that appear to be contradictory, out of line with the historical record, or at odds with our present-day religious belief/practice. Indeed, Enns confronts many of those things head on and offers a legitimate—and in my opinion, helpful—way to understand the Bible.

Among other things, Enns argues that a “correct” understanding of the Bible requires you to look at the way the biblical writers understood God in their time and place in the world, the purpose they had in telling or re-telling biblical stories, and how subsequent prophets (and even Christ) re-examined biblical stories in new and creative ways. That allows you to accept the stories for what they are and the most important lessons to be drawn therefrom.

Most important of all, Enns is saying, applying this understanding of the Bible this allows us to take an even more expansive view of God and the Gospel, and to focus on the essential mission of scripture: to bear record of Christ and help readers come to know Jesus, feel His Spirit, and follow Him. After all, Enns notes, it is God and Christ, rather than the Bible, that are supposed to be at the center of every Christian’s faith. And for me, as a person of faith, that perspective is probably the most important thing I take away from this book.

So, despite a few quibbles on some minor points, a few new issues that this book raises but doesn’t address (for example, the problems that arise if the generally accepted meaning of scripture is always subject to change), and the cheesy way Enns approaches some issues, I found this book to be very well worth the read. I’d happily recommend it to anyone else interested in this topic.

This books has given me a lot to ponder.

For most of my life, I have had an uncomfortable, conflicted relationship with the Bible. I love it and am constantly frustrated by it. Taught by "people of the book," from birth I was given all sorts of preconceived notions for what the Bible ought to be. This meant that as I've studied it more, I continually am having to deal with unmet expectations, which has felt like repeated faith crises.

Reading Enns' How the Bible Actually Works was a breath of fresh air, and truth be told, I had a hard time putting it down. He starts by sharing the questions he has heard on repeat from his students, namely: "What is the Bible, exactly? Who cares? What do I do with it?" And especially: "How does this ancient, distant, and odd book work for people who look to it today for spiritual guidance?" In his previous book - The Bible Tells me so - he argues that it's a mistake to see the Bible as an instruction manual, or a rulebook. In short, the "problems" of scripture that have to be explained are due to the baggage we bring to the text, expectations the Bible wasn't meant to meet.

His main point, the focus and oft-jokingly-repeated thesis is this: rather than seeing scripture as an instruction manual, or information to be downloaded, "the Bible holds out for us an invitation to join an ancient, well-traveled, and sacred quest to know God, the world we live in, and our place in it." The quest, in a single word, is wisdom. And he makes that point again and again and again looking at all the different parts of scripture to repeat it. As a friend put it, (and this phrase has stuck with me), his conclusion and thesis is "painfully obvious" and I so wish it had been drilled into my head as a youngster instead of all the religious baggage I carried for years. On all accounts, God is not a helicopter parent. As Rohr puts it, God is the "great-allower."

Of note, the book isn't written for conservative Christians. It's written for frustrated Christians - those "who have seen that the Bible doesn't meet the expectations they have been taught to cling to." It's for the barely Christian - hanging on to a thread of faith. And it may be for the formerly Christian - "who have had the courage to leave their faith behind when it ceased having any explanatory power for their reality because of what they were taught the Bible had to be."

If any of those identifiers resonate with you, I can't think of a better book for understanding the Bible.

For many raised in conservative Christian churches, there comes a moment when you read a certain scripture and think, "What?!?! How can it say that???" It might be God in the Old Testament commanding the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman, and child. It might be the weird ways the New Testament writers use the Old Testament. Or it might be numerous contradictions between passages. (He addresses all these questions in the book!) At these times, it often felt like my faith was crumbling to oblivion.

This book certainly would have rocked my world 15 years ago. And yet, it might have hastened the growth process. Today after wrestling with these questions for 15 years, most of the book was a helpful summary of similar conclusions.

That said, Peter Enns is my go-to for understanding how to think about the Bible. He's a Harvard educated Old Testament professor who was fired for questioning the conservative presuppositions on scripture (for a little more, see his Wikipedia article). And, he remains solidly a Jesus follower through and through. I look forward to reading his other books. (His podcast - The Bible for Normal People - is also good. It seems to take what he writes here for granted and move on to next steps.)

My one complaint would have to be the tone. Get ready for some Dad jokes. Even for this new dad, it was a bit much. Okay, a second complaint (which might asking too much from one book and might be answered by his other books) is where to go from here. Sure, defending scripture skews our perspective, but where do we go from here? How does scripture relate to other literature?

All that said, if you are coming from a conservative background and struggle to understand how to deal with scripture, this is an excellent resource. It's fun and accessible, critical and honest, and yet still remains committed to Jesus.

I was drawn to the title of this book, and enjoyed it. In general, I think the Christian apologetics movement has gotten away from itself--so much so that faith can be denigrated in the process. This is a quick and humorous read--a book for "normal people" on Enns' website, as opposed to a few he's written for "abnormal people."

The author’s approach of using examples from the Old Testament to demonstrate how Judaism evolved over time makes a lot of sense. Well done!

"The Bible Tells Me So" is an excellent and entertaining read that demonstrates, through scholarship and deep understanding, the Bible is not a literal, one-size fits all manual for how to live in the modern age. Enns's analysis of the Old Testament scriptures is particularly rigorous and he contextualizes much of these scriptures in light of their historical and cultural background. While Enns takes a sharp lens to the story of Israel I was a bit disappointed that the New Testament did not also get the same treatment. Enns asserts that Jesus changed the way the Jewish scriptures were meant to be read and understood, demonstrated in the writings of Paul, and this gives a cohesion to the Christian story in the Bible, but the NT are primarily discussed in light of the OT. More discussion, especially around the political intentions of the writers of the Gospel would have been welcome and warranted. Perhaps that is just the purview of another book.

Fun Read About A Big Book

Once I started reading The Bible Tells Me So I had to rip myself away from it to go eat and sleep. I loved this Peter Enns book. Now, inspired, I've got to go dig into my Bible and expand my vision of God once again.

A serious and well-articulated challenge to dogmatic religionists. And an invitation to trust God when our human limits leave us in doubt and uncertainty.

"As for Christians, perhaps evolution will eventually wind up being more of a help than a hindrance. Perhaps it will lead Christians to see that our theologies are provisional; when we forget that fact, we run the risk of equating what we think of God with God himself."

Good review and discussion of Adam in Biblical theology and how to relate this to human origins.

Another good quote: "There is a reason why Scripture looks the way it does, so human, so much a part of its world: it looks this way to exalt God’s power, not our power..."

The Bible Tells Me So challenges us to look at Scripture in a new light. Rather than feeling the need to defend the historical accuracy of each and every portion, the author encourages us to instead look at the bigger picture these stories might be trying to convey and to not get hung up on the literal historicity of certain portions.

The book is conversational and easy to read, but its ideas will be very challenging for more conservative folks.

Enns makes a lot of good points about biblical interpretation--especially biblical mis-interpretation and mis-prioritization, but what the book lacked was a constructive hermeneutic to replace the one he was criticizing. A full method wasn't needed, but suggestions of where to look for a more promising method, from his point of view, would have been helpful and grounded his criticisms better.

Awesome book! There is so much good stuff here. If you like theology, READ this book!

This is a meaty book. Really good but not a light read. It's the kind of book where you want to read a little and then give it time to sink in.

This was a good audio book from Peter Enns. Enns points out that Evangelical gatekeepers and the certainty police make belief and faith about a 'what" (i.e. what you believe) when belief and faith are meant to be 'who' terms which speak of who we a trusting and believing in (Jesus). When we get that, there is space for diverse understandings of faith and theology without making everyone toe-the-line of doctrinal purity. I think this is similar to the insights of pietists and the soul-freedom of Baptist tradition before both groups forgot their heritage and went fundy.

In Enns trademark style there is some biblical exegesis, theology, history, and personal memoir here, all rolled up in Enns's biting wit. This was a good audible listen, read by the author.

Fascinating look at the context of the Bible and how that informed the words that were written.

Based on the title, and the "Hebrew of the Hebrews" qualifications of the author in the Evangelical world (former tenured professor at Westminster Seminary), I expected this to be a good book. I was disappointed. Seems to be standard liberal claptrap for the most part. The author claims to have been set off on his liberal trajectory by considering that St. Paul referred to Christ as the rock that traveled with the Israelites in the wilderness. Pretty slim basis, it seems to me. But maybe the book will help some folks.

Fear not.

Those two simple words comprise the most common command in the Bible. Ironically, though, many Christians live in—if not precisely fear—at least a certain uneasiness about scripture. Here are some of the big issues:

- How could God command the genocide of the Canaanites?
- How could God annihilate the entire human race in a flood?
- Why do different passages of scripture take opposing views?
- How can Genesis speak intelligently to the modern world?
- How did Jesus and Paul get away with interpreting scripture so ... creatively?

Many Christians repress or explain away these issues, but deep down, the tension remains.

Peter Enns confronts the questions head on. His solution is simple: the Bible isn't an instruction manual on God, it's the account of how flawed human beings experienced God.

Reading the Bible responsibly and respectfully today means learning what it meant for ancient Israelites to talk about God the way they did, and not pushing alien expectations onto texts written long ago and far away. (65)

If the Bible is analogous to incarnation (fully God and fully human), Enns swings the pendulum from our longstanding Evangelical Docetism (not fully human) towards the Ebionism (not fully divine) side of the spectrum.

Now, you may not agree with Enns. Many people don't. (There's a great joke in the Acknowledgements section about the "Evangelical Witness Protection Program.") You do have to respect a man who is so transparent with his views that he lost his teaching post at Westminster Theological Seminary. He also handles these issues with a genuine laugh-out-loud sense of humour.

Whether you agree or not, "fear not." God is more than big enough to handle our questions.

Fantastic book! If you’ve ever wondered how to read the Bible like Jesus, here’s your answer in a fun, easy-to-read publication. Peter Enns takes you on a walk through the Bible, pointing out how impossible it is to read it as either a history book or a rulebook. Eventually, he winds up in the New Testament giving examples of how Jesus himself interpreted scripture in his day … the Jewish way, which emphasized creative engagement with the scriptures.

Says Peter, “I believe God wants us to take the Bible seriously, but I don’t believe he wants us to suppress our questions about it.” So, he gives you lots to question. By the time you finish, you’ll be overloaded with practical examples from scripture itself on how to transform the Bible from a stale instruction manual into living, growing Word, able to stretch across the centuries.

Peter’s discussion about the evil of the conquest of Canaan is enlightening. Did God really tell Israel to slaughter every man, woman and child in their way? Or did the Bible’s storytellers–who were tribal, and who connected with God in their day as a tribal warrior God, much differently than we relate to Him today–simply assume that’s what any proper God would want? The answer may be moot: archaeologists are certain no such conquest, such as described in the Bible, really happened. So now what are we supposed to make of the Bible?

Can we trust God enough to let the Bible be what it is?

Peter’s writing style is conversational and … oh, he’s going to kill me for saying this … sort of cute. But don’t let this fool you into thinking his research isn’t scholarly, or that it won’t resurrect new passion within you for the Bible. I absolutely loved this one.

HarperOne, © 2014, 262 pages

ISBN: 978-0-06227202-7

The issue of the relationship between science and faith has been an important topic for centuries, if not millennia, if not longer. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that it is as great, if not greater, an issue today than any other time in history. Advances in science and archaeology over the past 125 years have put everyone in a position of having to address this relationship. There are many routes taken in this process.

Some go with a simple dismissal. Science is evil and a lie from the pits of hell. Religion is a crutch for the simple minded and offers nothing to the scientifically literate of the world. Or maybe the dismissal is not as extreme and prejudiced as that, but it still a simple dismissal of the competing claims. This has been the approach for many of us for most of our lives.

I just do not think we have that luxury anymore, especially in regards to the issue of evolution. We are now seeing a virtual universal acceptance of some form of evolutionary theory in our world today. While many or most Evangelicals and virtually all Fundamentalists still reject any type of macro-evolutionary theory, the option to dismiss without engaging is no longer viable. Our world is embracing evolutionary science and we must be willing and able to engage those who do. According to Barna research, one of the reasons many youth leave the church is for its unwillingness to engage scientific issues with any semblance of credibility. Many hold that the church's rejection of evolutionary theory is a misguided elevation of interpretation over revelation, much like the initial rejection of the heliocentric model of the universe presented by Copernicus and argued for by Galileo.

Many books have been written over the past decade about a Christian's response to evolutionary theory. The Creation Institute and the Biologos Foundation have both been instrumental in furthering the discussion, if not at times resorting to caricature and polemics where better means would have been more appropriate and beneficial. Nevertheless, the discussion is occurring and that is a good thing. A good addition to the discussion is Peter Enns' recent book, The Evolution ofAdam.

Enns is explicit with what he is attempting to accomplish in his book. “My aim is to speak to those who feel that a synthesis between biblically conversant Christian faith and evolution is a pressing concern. And my purpose here is certainly not to undermine the faith of those who see things differently.” I do hope Enns is genuine with this statement, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Enns' purpose is based on some underlying truths to which he holds. “The truth value of any theological iteration cannot be judged simply by how well it conforms to past views...I take it as axiomatic that a healthy theology is one that shows a willingness—even an expectation—to revisit ways of thinking and changing them when need be.” I would hope that this is something on which we all could agree and support with a hearty “Amen!”

Enns makes some great points throughout this book. His most relevant and important point is looking at how many Christians are simply unwilling to engage a counterview because of fear.
Enns statement about why many Christians are reticent to even explore the idea of evolutionary theory is quite insightful and may have applications beyond simply how we interact with scientific thought.

Enns writes:
The Christian faith is invariably tied to its sacred book, where God speaks. Any challenge to how that book has been understood—and evolution requires some significant adjustment for many—is bound to be threatening and so elicit strong reactions. Saying that the Adam story in Genesis is not a historical account, even though it seems to be understood that way by Paul—no matter how gently one puts it—presents a real threat to some because it is believed to undermine the trustworthiness of the Bible.
The reason why this tension is felt so acutely—particularly among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—is because of the central role that the Bible plays in those traditions. Although they express their commitments differently, both of these groups share a commitment to the supreme authority of the Bible in all theological matters, which typically (or at least historically) has included a commitment to the accuracy of the Bible. When challenges to the “boundary marker” arise, tensions naturally increase.
The roots of the commitment to the Protestant Evangelical and Fundamentalist consciousness are varied, but certainly one significant historical factor is the Reformation concept of sola Scriptura: the Bible alone is the church's final authority on all matters pertaining to faith and life.... (sola Scriptura) does not leave much room for reinterpreting the Bible in view of extra biblical information, be it science or Mesopotamian creation texts. These external forces introduce ambiguity into the otherwise clear meaning of the Bible and are seen to relativize its teachings as cultural expressions. Evolution requires Christians to rethink theology, yet some believe accepting this challenge calls into question their core Protestant identity. For some Christians, therefore, evidence from natural science and archaeology, no matter how compelling, is simply inadmissible. Too much is at stake.



That being said, I have some serious concerns this book and with what seems to be guiding its author.. Enns holds some truths to be indisputable and seemingly self-evident, to the point that his premise fails because the foundation he attempts to lay depends on the reader agreeing with his presuppositions about Scripture and history.

The main base for Enns is his undaunted allegiance to Biblical Criticism, specifically the work of Julius Wellhausen.

No Old Testament scholar has had more of a lasting impact on his field than Julius Wellhausen. Not unlike Darwin in his field, Wellhausen synthesized a lot of data and developed a theory that caught on quickly with most specialists at the time yet was also hotly contested by others and even maligned and reviled by some. Like Darwin, Wellhausen's ideas have had to be refined, adjusted, and in some cases abandoned as further discoveries came to light. Today many of the details of Wellhausen's arguments no longer dominate the academic conversation, but two general insights remain as a virtually unquestioned foundation for subsequent work :(1) that parts of the Pentateuch were composed over several centuries, and (2) that the Pentateuch as a whole was not completed until after the Israelites returned from exile.



This leads Enns to some points that are critical to his premise but, as far as I can see, not necessarily true.
*A Post Exilic writing of Genesis,

*Genesis being dependent on ancient near eastern myth,

*Genesis being not historical but rather allegorical,

*Paul as simply an interpreter of a document, not the Holy Spirit inspired recorder of divine revelation so he is subject to error as any other man when interpreting Scripture.

While I struggled to find common ground or a convincing argument in much of Enns work, he hit on some points that I feel are critical to understanding this debate and the need for the conversation.

One point he makes is that the biggest problem for Christians in the situation of human evolution, the historical Adam and the historicity of Genesis 1-3 is Paul. While it would require some rethinking and some interpretation of Scriptures that differs from what is accepted now, one could make a case for evolution without any genuine violation of Scripture if it were not for the writings of Paul and how he deals with Adam.
Christians have a bigger problem than dealing with Genesis if they want to reconcile Christianity and evolution: Paul. Here we come to the heart of the matter, what I believe is the ultimate source of concern for Christians who are seeking a synthesis between the Bible and evolution...The conversation between Christianity and evolution would be far less stressful for some if it were not for the prominent role that Adam plays in two of Paul's letters, specifically in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-58. In these passages, Paul seems to regard Adam as the first human being and the ancestor of everyone who ever lived. This is a particularly vital point in Romans, where where Paul regards Adam's disobedience as the cause of universal sin and death from which humanity is redeemed through the obedience of Christ. Many Christians, however creative they might be willing to be about interpreting Genesis, stop dead in their tracks when they see how Paul handles Adam.


And I cannot stress enough how I appreciate and applaud his desire to interact with the topic of Science and Evolutionary Theory rather than simply dismiss it outright. While it may be true that evolution is a bunch of bunk and that's all there is to it, this argument is not likely to lead many modern, thinking minds into a dialogue with the Christian faith where they can see the goodness and truth of our claim that we serve a crucified and risen King.

Enns summarizes his position in his final chapter called “Adam Today: 9 Theses”. Reading the text with these points in mind will help the reader see where Enns is going and how he gets there.

1. Literalism is not an option.

2. Scientific and biblical models of human origin are, strictly speaking, incompatible because they speak a different “language”. They cannot be reconciled, and there is no “Adam” to be found in an evolutionary scheme.

3. The Adam story in Genesis reflects its ancient Near Eastern setting and should be read that way.

4. There are two creation stories in Genesis; the Adam story is probably older and was subsumed under Genesis 1 after the exile in order to tell Israel's story.

5. The Israel-centered focus of the Adam story can also be seen in its similarity to Proverbs: the story of Adam is about failure to fear God and attain wise maturity.

6. God's solution through the resurrection of Christ reveals the deep, foundational plight of the human condition, and Paul expresses that fact in the Biblical idiom available to him.

7. A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks by means of the cultural idiom of the authors—whether it be the author of Genesis in describing origins or how Paul would later come to understand Genesis. Both reflect the setting and limitations of the cultural moment.

8. The root of conflict for many Christians is not scientific or even theological, but group identiy and fear of losing what it offers.

9. A true rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not simply adding evolution to existing theological formulations.

While I disagree with much of what Enns wrote, including the conclusions he comes to, I definitely appreciate his viewing this topic as pressing and worthy of a book-length interaction. His admonition to deal with the topic in an authentic manner, whether he does so or not, is applicable to all believers. His reminder that this is a topic that needs to be addressed cannot be stressed highly enough. What is implicit in his text is a challenge to seek truth, no matter where it leads you. If we truly hold to the fact that “all truth is God's truth” then a Christian should never fear where a search for truth will take them.

A grammatical-historical approach has always fed off of our growing knowledge of the biblical world, the results being a clearer understanding of what the text is trying to get across. Placing the Bible in its historical contexts is the principle that lies behind every commentary on our shelves and the notes and maps that make up our study Bibles. The fact that the scientific and archaeological evidence concerning Genesis can be somewhat challenging does not permit us to abandon the principle.
To that I offer a hearty, “Amen!” To the book as a whole, I would suggest reading it with a healthy dose of skepticism and being mindful of the presuppositions with which Enns approaches this topic.