Comments

What a horrible shame. I hope this doesn't signal a move within the broader evangelical community back towards a fundamentalism that is incapable of dealing with the reality of the scriptures God gave us.

Enns I&I has been a literal “God send” for many of us Evangelicals struggling with the implications of scriptural hermeneutics. His Incarnational analogy is as fruitful as it is simple. In many ways I believe it is calling us back to an orthodox view of scripture, an approach that acknowledges scriptures’ divinity & its humanity, an approach somewhat at odds with Evangelicalism sometimes Docetic view.

More likely it signals a move by WTS away from evangelicalism and back to it's more "militantly reform" inception.

Wow! I finally find an evangelical book that is intellectually honest, that I can comfortably use in my classes and he is suspended. That's beyond understanding. My questions to the board: 1. Have they actually read the book? 2. Are they in any way qualified to read a book with serious theological and biblical content?

I'm wondering if this would be case for which Dr. Duane Litfin's excellent 2004 book, Conceiving the Christian College, might shed some light. I confess I am only marginally aware of all the issues surrounding this case. Dr. Litfin states that the only way institutions like Westminster can stay true to their founding principles, they must employ a voluntary principle. If Dr. Enns finds himself out of step with Westminster's statement of beliefs, perhaps it is time to separate ways.

Is GK Beale's treatment really published? What a shame. He should have the sense to know that he cannot interact with the material that Enns is working with. He simply cannot and has not read the ancient Near Eastern literature. He does not read Akkadian or Sumerian, nor does he even understand the script. It is not lamentable that he cannot read the primary sources (after all, not everyone is NELC trained), but that he's too dishonest to state upfront: "I cannot read the data that he's commenting. Thus, my arguments will be superficial and rely on secondary literature." G.K. Beale is a smart man, but even smart men act like ignorant fundamentalists when they try to interact with trained Near Eastern scholars.

To be fair, he does list some truly competant Near Eastern scholars, but none have training at a critical institution in both Biblical Studies.

This made me go out and but Dr. Enns' book. This does not reflect poorly on Enns, but on Westminster. What are they so afraid of? Are they afraid that the truth cannot withstand a challenge, even such a moderate one as Enns' book seem to pose?

Although I haven't raed professor Enns book,If it is in any way connected to the heresy of the emergent cult movement spreading like a cancer throughout the faith, I say praise God for the leadership at the seminary.I was going to attend Fuller seminary when I read a reprot indicating they would be taking this approach to the Holy scriptures. For those who are uncomfortable with the convicting nature of the message of the cross and Gospel,I would say praise God! it's doing just what it should. If your not happy with the message find a God who will allow you to pull him off the thrown at the right hand of the father and be your Homie.

Admittedly, I don't know all the details, but evangelical leadership across the board seems to be getting fidgety and fearful over small differences of viewpoint. Decision are more and more based, not in faith, but in fear.

Heh, heh, heh...sounds like the ol' Catholics vs. the Lutheranians, only without emphasis on the Bible. You just wait another 350-500 years ... we will be surprised to see the Enns Church of Faith Community, Founder: Peter Enns. Imprimater: Jack White and the Westminster Seminary Board.
Blessings,
GMMelby, Pastor

If this guy is teaching heresy, could expelling him be considered unloving? We need to pay much closer attention to the truth and less to our evangellifish feelings.

I read this book some months ago. It was interesting and thought provoking. Some of it I agreed with, some not and as to some the jury is still out. I found nothing in it which was heretical or so misguided that it would warrant censure or reprimand. Apparently the pc thought police are at work in theological circles as well. Certain ideas may not be uttered. Since it is clear that Enns has a strong faith in Christ and a right view of him, this kind of knee jerk reaction is simply wrong. One wonders whether the members who voted to suspend Enns actually read his book or whether they just relied on what they may have been told about it.

Thank you, Ted Olson, for this excellent,terse report with links to the varied evaluations of the writing of Enns. The valuable links establish that, far from this being simply an intra-WTS matter(as some pundits are urging), there exists a growing polarization of opinion across evangelicalism as to what a belief in biblical inspiration entails. If there once was a consensus that belief in inspiration presupposed or entailed a certain commitment to maintaining the integrity of Scripture, this consensus now no longer exists. WTS' action suggests that it means to continue its past,very public allegiance to this important principle of Scripture's integrity.

As a first year student at Westminster this issue has taken up a considerable amount of time and energy for both myself as well as many others on campus. A common theme on campus has been the need to ask for God's guidance as well as forgiveness. Please join with myself and many others in prayer for the faculty members, their spouses and children, current students especially those in the PhD program, and the preservation of what has been a long history of cutting edge biblical studies grounded in a rich reformed heritage.

WTS was well within its rights. Just as Enns was to express his viewpoint, WTS was free to take issue with it and dismiss him. Academic freedom means being willing to accept the consequences of its exercise.

Those who embrace the Alexandrian text will be infected by Alexandrian mysticism. Return to the faith of your fathers, embrace the Received Text and the "fundamentalism" that leads to the Cross and not to this cesspool of confusion called "evangelicalism" and "emergent christianity". This article and the comments are nothing but Laodicea in full bloom.

While I don't begrudge Westminster the right to select its own faculty, this news saddens me considerably. Peter Enns did a great service to evangelicals and other conservative Christians by publishing Inspiration and Incarnation, as I opined in my review of I&I for Restoration Quarterly 48.2 (2006). I would have taken certain issues farther than Enns did (but then, I do not think of myself as an evangelical), but I was greatly encouraged by Enns's ability to combine a high view of scripture with critical honesty. I confess that my opinion of Westminster has gone down a notch as a result of this action.

Andrew: You stated, "If this guy is teaching heresy, could expelling him be considered unloving? We need to pay much closer attention to the truth and less to our evangellifish feelings."

The big problem is your first "if." The faculty voted that Peter Enns was not teaching heresy. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the facts and less to your own feelings which are not based on knowledge of the situation at hand.

I am amazed at the comments that are made on this site about this issue. Some people feel free to weigh in with very little background. I can just say that this is another example of the tensions that are going on in evangalicalism and the culture as well.

Kudos to the WTS board and their resolve to preserve the theological integrity of the school. Surely the command to contend earnestly for the faith means something, and they are right to act accordingly. Pete may be very sincere, but his views are mistaken, and, worse, they begin a dangerous path. Of course in a move like this the board will be criticized. Somehow today any stand for truth is smeared as fundamentalist extremism. Well, again, the command to contend for the faith lays a certain demand on us, and the WTS board should be congratulated for acting accordingly. They have not only made a move to keep the school in Machen's path; they have done what is right. I do pray that they will be emboldened to stay the course.

I am shocked at this decision. I thought WTS was heading in the right direction. Here is my thoughts on the matter...

http://cdero.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/bible-monopoly/

It is important to keep in mind that the only vote regarding Peter Enns's orthodoxy was the December vote of the faculty, who voted in favor of Enns by a 12-8 vote.

The decision of the board, as read in their public statement, was based on the disunity of the faculty.

It should be clarified, kept in mind, and shouted from the rooftops that the Board's decision is not to be equated with confirming Dr. Enns's heterodoxy. Their decision was based on disunity, not on whether or not Dr. Enns is to be considered within the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

As stated in the Board's document, the IPC will present a report in May concerning "the appropriate process for the Board to consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary."

As of this moment in history, the Board has not "officially" said anything regarding the work of Peter Enns. They have only made a decision based on faculty disunity.

Art, thanks for the helpful clarification, but as a former WTS student, I must wonder how the board decision will result in faculty unity. Spurned majorities are not normally known to become placid so easily.

I used Enns's book in a course on OT that I taught at an evangelical Christian college a year ago and the students found it refreshing and immensely helpful. I didn't agree with everything in it, but what book is there that one agrees with completely? However, there is absolutely nothing in the book that in heterodox. The book actually strengthened my faith in the authority of Scripture and the wisdom of God.

I find it amazing that several of the posts which are questionable of enns or use words like "teaching heresy" also admit to having never read his book, or know anything about the issues. Read the book before making mild implications to "the emergent church" "evangellifish" and "heresy." To do otherwise is a sin of gossip.

I'm neither a member of WTS's denomination nor an evangelical, so I realize that this issue is ultimately a matter for those communities to decide. As a biblical studies grad student at a major program (sorry for the cowardly pseudonym), though, I have seen several brilliant colleagues and friends take positions at conservative institutions such as WTS. They take, and seek, such jobs (when, frankly, many could have attained jobs at better institutions) largely because of a desire to serve their churches and their communities, yet these schools reserve the right to fire them at any time (and whatever else a statement of faith is, it also is a "we can fire you for any reason at any time" statement as well - and I have seen one colleague come out on the wrong side of this already). It's hard for me not to think that schools like WTS take advantage of young professors' pious motives here. I in no way want to suggest that WTS admin hires cynically, but these kinds of institutions surely enjoy the fruits of the prestige that well-trained and -published faculty bring them. It's clear that WTS doesn't want certain kinds of faculty -- accordingly, I think that an institution that behaves like this deserves precisely the kind of uncurious, indoctrinated, and non-innovative faculty they want.

This is a real shame as Enns' book is one of the most honest attempts to both enhance our respect for the inspired text of Scripture as well as grapple with the genuine realities about the Scripture, to which so many have proverbially "buried their heads in the sand."

It is one thing to disagree with particulars of Enns points and engage in respectful controversy over those matters. It is another to take this action. The lack of academic freedom to pursue questions with integrity; to open up all possibilities and solutions; is an absolute blow to the pursuit of truth. This is a disastrous decision for Christian academia, in my view, and certainly exposes Westminster (or those who put pressure on the school to take this action) as a rather closed-minded, reactionary lot.

Larry,
And others. I have read the book.
1. It has nothing to do with what you call the "emergent church cult." (Whether the emergent church movement is a cult is another question, but Enns' book has nothing to do with it.)
2. The book is not heretical. Enns defends the authority of scripture. He is trying to deal with the historical reality of scripture.
3. I would also say, one does not have to be an expert in ANE literature and languages to appreciate and read Inspiration and Incarnation. There are reliable translations of the relevant texts; primarily the 3-volume "Context of Scripture".

One does not need to be able to read the Akkadian script in order to appreciate Akkadian literature; in the same way that you don't have to read cursiva romana to understand and appreciate Virgil and Cicero.

I do think it is essential that we have scholars in our seminaries who are trained in ANE literature and languages. Professor Enns is dealing with issues that are real and are not going away.

Dr. Enn’s book is only getting much needed, and entirely unwarranted, advertising through all the hubbub. It is a shame that such sloppy thinkers tend to dominate discussions, create controversy due to their incoherence, and leave us in the end un-edified. Arguments, such as Bryan's, March 28, 2008, totally beg the question, since expertise in ANE languages is not a prerequisite for evaluating a scholar's views on scripture. The real issue here is simply the need for honesty from those that no longer hold to a full inerrancy position. Indeed, Dr. Enns’ departure from what many of us would call an orthodox view of scripture and inerrancy occurred over twenty years ago, and all the noise is only the rumble of his troubled wake as he belatedly departs from WTS for the more historical-critical-friendly shores that abound. Indeed, Dr. Enns sadly seems to be a “fall guy,” since the rest of the OT department might be hard-pressed to claim any greater restraint on their historical-critical hermeneutics, since they all follow and emulate the deceased Raymond Dillard whose motto was “Plundering the [historical-critical] Egyptians.” Imagine a seminary professor (esp. WTS) so butchering (i.e., spiritualizing) an OT text to rationalize his employment of historical-critical methods! As Eta Linneman replied to him once on this point, “For shame, for shame . . . remember what the Israelites made of the plunder!”

I read the book (a while back) and some of the reviews (including that of G. Beale). It was clear to me (it is not fresh in my mind) at that time that Enns writes as a believer in Christ who is struggling with some of the most difficult passages from the Bible (including Genesis 1-11). He did raise some questions and interpretations that would certainly make uncomfortable certain evangelicals (including me).

However- I got the feeling that his writing did not intend to present a final position on these texts - but rather to start a conversation WITHIN the evangelical community. The intention was very good - as most of the people in ministry know that the questions about Genesis are some of the most difficult to answer when people from the congregation have the guts and honesty to pose them. I appreciate his book a lot - though (of course) I do not agree with everything.

As far as his suspension goes - I agree with one of the writers above: he should suspend himself if he finds himself out of step with Westminster's statement of beliefs.

Of course - his suspension will not answer some of the questions that he poses in his book - and which are not given (in my opinion) a satisfactory answer by the more orthodox (?) representatives of evangelicalism.

This is yet another case of conservative evangelicalism burying it's head in the sand. For WTS to react in this way and avoid the discussion of serious, honest questions in a thoughtful and considered way is a very sad commentary on the institution. It is particularly this sort of reactionary posture that makes people in general look sideways at Christianity.
This position comes out of fear and hysteria, pure and simple, dressed up as orthodox guardianship. It is intellectually dishonest, disowning the God who endowed us with brains.
Enns' future, I believe, is a bright one. I cannot say the same for WTS, it's leadership, and most unfortunately, its students.

Paradoxed in PA:

That Lineman point doesn't make sense. The use of "plundering the Egyptians" is supposed to represent that the Israelites took the Egyptian plunder and used the VAST MAJORITY of it to build the tabernacle.

The israelites used a bunch of earrings (which may not have even been plunder) to build the calf. In any case, God wanted them to have the plunder, and they did need to be careful with it.

As usual, when orthodoxy and truth collide - orthodoxy wins every time.

-evan

During the Civil Rights Movement era, my then small university greatly benefited from plucking up refugee professors fleeing from conservative Jim Crow/Bible Belt universities...a forced brain drain from areas that seemed to need some conscientiously active gray matter. What lucky colleges and seminaries are benefiting from conservative evangelical/Catholic institutional purges today?

Reading I&I was a refreshing time. I've never come across anything like it written from an evangelical perspective. The book tacked significant issues head on. I don't believe that Enns said all that there is to say (as he clearly indicates); and I don't take his conclusions as final (and he seems to think of some of them as provisional as well.) But he does honestly present material and problems that any thinking Christian must come to terms with -- for this I'm grateful. And you can't condemn a man for being honest and thoughtful.

Gregory:
Well, Biblical Seminary (long thought to be WTS's little sister) just nabbed Steve Taylor from WTS over (presumably) the Enns issue. I pray they get Enns as well.

Amen Shaun!
As a Biblical grad I've enjoyed the healthy dialogue and innovation taking place there. I wonder if Biblical and Westminster would ever get together to have a conversation about their educational philosophies, approach to theology and culture, etc.? That could be a really fascinating discussion.

In other news that I have not yet heard covered anywhere.

Brent Sandy, Skip Forbes, and Bernon Lee, the only full-time members of the Religious Studies faculty, were fired from Grace College this fall.

They were fired for three reasons.
(1) They were part of a process a few years ago to change the name of the department to "Religious Studies" (voted on the by the faculty and approved by the administration). The name has now been changed to "School of Ministry Studies."
http://www.grace.edu/academics/undergrad/so_ministry.php

(2) There was a concern that they were questioning premillennial, pretribulational eschatology adhered to by The Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches, which is associated with the school.

Quote below from the FGBC statement of faith:
http://www.fgbc.org/whoarewe/covenant-and-statement-of-faith.cfm

SECOND COMING. The personal, visible, and imminent return of Christ to remove His church from the earth (1 Thess. 4:16-17) before the tribulation (1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 3:10), and afterward to descend with the Church to establish His millennial kingdom upon the earth (Rev. 19:11-20:6).

(3) Invited John Sanders to speak about open theism though there were faculty responses that critiqued Sanders's approach.

Related stories:
Wheaton College fires Joshua Hochschild for becoming a Roman Catholic (2005)
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB113659805227040466-lMyQjAxMDE2MzE2MDUxOTA4Wj.html

Southwestern Seminary fires Sheri Klouda for being a woman and teaching Hebrew (2006)
http://www.abpnews.com/3093.article

I have had both Enns and G. Beale as seminary teachers, having received degrees from both WTS and GCTS (Beale taught there for a long time). Both are reformed. Both love the Bible and know it inside and out. I found both to be excellent teachers. I got to know Enns more than Beale, and can say that he is truly a godly guy morally and one who prayed over me and encouraged me in my faith while sitting in his office on multiple occasions. It really hurts to see all that has happened. Beale can be over-bearing and perhaps a bit too strong in his views. I can't imagine, however, that he really wanted this to happen to Enns. Enns' teaching on this matter follows within the same trajectory of a long line of WTS professors who remain revered (Conn, MacCartney, Stonehouse) and others who have had a major impact on the institution (Dillard, Longman, Silva). That a few conclude that Enns is a heretic; this is just ridiculous talk. I do not believe that fair-minded Christians will make such conclusions. What is the problem? I believe it is a small segment in Reformed circles who love the taste of blood and take secret pleasure in seeing it spilt. That is my conclusion having had multiple years of interaction with part of the constituency of WTS.