I just came across a review of Peter Enn’s controversial book The Evolution of Adam, the review is done by a recent PhD grad from Trinity Evangelical Divinity school; his perspective is from a conservative Reformed vantage point, and while I don’t agree with Hans Madueme, soteriologically (and probably on other fronts), I am partial to his critique of Enns. You can read his full review here. Here is how he opens his ‘review essay’:
The gist of this new book by Peter Enns is that evangelicals should revise their expectations of Genesis and Paul—with reference to Adam and the fall—in order to relieve perceived tensions between Christianity and evolution.1 This thesis turns out to be controversial.
On the one hand are evangelicals who disagree with Enns and judge his basic argument a capitulation to modern science. If Enns is right, then present-day conservative evangelicals are wrong, the early twentieth-century fundamentalists were wrong, pre-nineteenth-century Protestant Christianity was wrong, the post-Reformation scholastic tradition was wrong, the Reformers were wrong, and the entire medieval and patristic tradition was wrong. And why? Because Darwinian natural science and the biblical criticism that emerged with the rise of historical consciousness in the eighteenth/nineteenth century are right.
On the other hand, those sympathetic with Enns are worried that old bugaboos like inerrancy are tearing apart the evangelical movement and bringing unnecessary disrepute to the Christian faith. This also places an unbearable strain on younger evangelicals who seek to cultivate the best Christian minds as they follow Christ: Are they to play the ostrich, bury their heads in the sand and deny what every sane, intelligent person believes in the twenty-first century?
That is the situation—alas—and Enns is brave enough to begin a conversation (p. 112). Taking him up on this, this brief reflection offers a perspective on why many Protestants, myself included, have significant reservations about his arguments. I shall simply assume that readers have already read the book; specific details of Enns’s argument can be found in other reviews (e.g., see countless print, online and blog reviews). 2 Better yet, read the book for yourself. It is well-written, accessible, and provocative. My main purpose is to dialogue with Enns from my location as a Reformed systematic theologian. Like Enns, these reflections “are an outworking of my own Christian convictions” (p. xii, with italics); I have good friends who disagree with some of the claims I make here. Further, this review is not comprehensive since there are vital matters I do not touch on—not even to wave as I drive by.3 Instead, (1) I begin with initial observations before broaching a few areas worthy of discussion: (2) the doctrine of Scripture, (3) natural science and historical criticism, (4) further theological concerns, (5) a methodological aside, and (6) concluding thoughts.
I believe Adam is a real historical person, so I disagree with Enns and agree with Madueme. How about you?
The Face Of Christ 
I use to be much more involved in this issue a year or so ago but let it take to the back-burner. Enns is a much more calm and rooted fellow than some of the Theistic-Evolution crowd. He always seemed somewhat of a moderate on BioLogos.
Which makes me into the arch conservative because while I do think evolutionary means were employed I do believe in a real, flesh and blood man named Adam who was the first man.
The one thing about Madueme’s critique that I’m wary of is the “Enns is just being driven by modern science!”. It is one thing to say “Well science says the Earth is X years old, guess the Bible has got to fit” and “Wait a minute, the data seems to say Earth is X years old, maybe I should re-examine to see if I’m understanding Scripture rightly”. The latter view gets lumped into the first by those partisans who won’t allow ground. Even Augustine had questions regarding Creation when he asked how they kept days if there was no sun till the 4th day!
The theory I find the most interesting (and perhaps most plausible) is that of Alexander Denis about Homo Divinus.
Also, if you’re interested, some of the boys who share sentiments commune around one of the BioLogos regulars Jon Garvey (http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/). Good thoughts to be had there.
Cal,
Thanks for the link. I don’t believe in macro-evolution at the moment, but can see how it is plausible for some (it was for TF Torrance).
I think, as you rightly note, the primary issue here is really a methodological question; i.e. or a hermeneutical question. There are prior commitments shaping this discussion from all sides, and it is those commitments that need to be dealt with more fully on all sides.