Friday, March 28, 2008

• Professor Enns Suspended at Westminster Theological Seminary

  Currently Reading Thomas F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography By Alister E. McGrath see related

  Most folks have read about this already on other blogs.  But most blogs have not commented much on the situation.  So, let me do that now.  You can find the official seminary notice below.

  Professor Enns ("Pete" - that is what he insists all his students call him), was perhaps the most stimulating teachers I ever had the pleasure to sit under.  He has a way of putting things that is interesting, challenging, and provocative.  He gets you thinking.  Not to mention, Pete is one of the most personable and kindly gentlemen you'll ever meet.  Well, besides being a Yankee fan!   He and I would go back and forth on this issue because I am a Mets fan, and their is no greater rivalry in sports than that between the Mets and Yankees.  Not to mention that he is a North Jersey boy, like me.  So, that automatically gives him a great deal of coolness to begin with! ;)

  I'm saddened, in many ways, about what has happened here.  I pray for Pete and for his family, and I have been through all this.  This must be a terribly hard and stressful time for them all. 

  Of course, this was not just a stressful time for Pete and his family, but it was for those on the other side of this issue also.  The men who opposed Pete's view of the Bible, I think, did what they did out of a very difficult sense of duty and conviction.  And, no doubt, when the board made that vote they did with heavy hearts.  But here's the thing from which we must not waver: they did the right thing. 

  And they did the right thing not because Pete's book was crumby or terribly useless.  Not in the least.  The book was actually quite helpful and well done in many respects.  He very nicely lays out the issues and areas where skeptics of the Bible see a "problem".  This is helpful because as Christians we need to be aware of these "problem" passages and issues (thus, the book was very helpful to me).  So, the opposition to Enns' book is not because he raises the problems.  No, Westminster Seminary and those of us in the OPC and PCA don't believe in hiding from the hard questions.  Our history is a history of giving an answer for the hard questions.  Yet, I get the impression that those who have backed Enns think that the reason for the opposition is because we want to shirk the hard questions.  Not at all, may it never be!  That is not the Old Princeton and Old Westminster way!

  Around the turn of the 20th century people were asking the hard questions.  Both Warfield and Briggs were asking the hard questions.  The issue between Warfield and Briggs was not: to ask or not ask the hard questions.  No, rather, the issue was: how do we answer the hard questions.  Briggs answered the questions by saying that we must accent the humanity of Scripture and deny inerrancy.  Warfield's answer was completely different.  He wanted to rigorously answer those "problems" but all the while accenting the divinity of Scripture and maintaining inerrancy.  It was a through and through believing answer given to the hard questions, whereas Briggs answer was unbelieving through and through.  He gave up the accent on divine agency in Scripture and the Reformed doctrine of the Bible's inerrancy.

  The issue with Pete's work is not that he is not shirking the hard questions.  It is good that he wants to address the "problems"!  The issue is with how he answered them.  To put the accent of the humanity of Scripture (this is Pete's way of putting his position, not mine.  See his article in CJT, 2007) and it's erroneous "messiness", and to make the cultural context determinative for interpretation of the text, are just the tip of the iceberg of the non-Reformed way in which he seeks to "solve" the "problems".  Other issues are the way in which he understands the New Testament's use of the Old Testament.  Reading what he says in I&I, I was left with the impression that the Old Testament meant one thing (that is, something not about Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection), and what the New Testament authors did was radically reinterpret the OT by reading into the OT text their experience of Jesus.  I was told more than one, for instance, in my OT classes that what Isaiah was speaking about when he prophesied about the virgin who conceives was not Jesus, but the birth of a king right there and then in Isaiah's day.  Thus, when the New Testament quotes from Isaiah 7, the NT author - in a way not different from his 2nd Temple interpretive milieu - is reading his community's Messiah figure into the OT text.  But that eisegesis is OK, because, after all, everyone's doing it.

  But, you see - and call me an ignorant backwoods fundy if you like - I believe that Isaiah actually was speaking about Jesus, at least ultimately.  This is how John says it:

  ^{John 12:41} Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.

  Granted, in this text, John says this after quoting twice from Isaiah's prophecy, although not from chapter 7.  Nevertheless, John is not saying Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus and spoke about Jesus only in the aforementioned verses, but he saw the glory of Jesus and spoke of him everywhere!  Yes, I believe that Isaiah received special and direct revelation from God about Jesus of Nazareth.  And, by the way, so did Abraham:

  ^{John 8:56} Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.

  Or, do we not actually believe what the New Testament says about the Old Testament anymore?  Is it not the inerrant Word of God, given through human form, interpreting for us the text of the OT - as Scripture interprets Scripture?

  See, the Bible alone is sufficient for answering it's own "problems".  We don't go somewhere outside the Bible to speak for the Bible.  No, we go to the Bible itself.  It alone is the norm for faith and practice.  That is how the Reformed have asked and answered the hard questions.  But Dr. Enns did not answer them in this way.  He answered them in a way that Briggs did over a hundred years ago.  And this is why it was necessary to suspend him.  This is why it is necessary to terminate his position at the seminary.  And this is why those who have supported him ought likewise to leave the seminary. 

  Of course, I pray that won't be necessary.  We need to pray, above all, for repentance and humility (both our own repentance and humility and for that of Enns and his supporters).  That these men, who really are kind and likeable men, will submit their minds and their hearts to the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Scriptures. 

  Here is the notice that was sent out; for those who haven't seen it yet:

  March 27, 2008

  
  

  Thank you very much for your prayers for the special meeting of the Board of Trustees that was held on March 26 to address the disunity of the faculty regarding the theological issues related to Dr. Peter Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. After a full day of deliberation, the Board of Trustees took the following action by decisive vote:

  
  

  “That for the good of the Seminary (Faculty Manual II.4.C.4) Professor Peter Enns be suspended at the close of this school year, that is May 23, 2008 (Constitution Article III, Section 15), and that the Institutional Personnel Committee (IPC) recommend the appropriate process for the Board to consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary. Further that the IPC present their recommendations to the Board at its meeting in May 2008.”

  
  

  In order to provide the entire Westminster community with a more complete understanding of the Board’s decision and to offer an opportunity for questions and dialogue, the Chairman and Secretary of the Board will join the President on campus for a special chapel on Tuesday, April 1 at 10:30 am. Students and staff are encouraged to attend and participate. Following that special chapel, they will hold a separate meeting with the faculty.

  Our concern is to honor the Lord Jesus Christ and assure a faithful witness for Westminster for years to come. To that end, please pray for everyone involved during the next two months.

  Jack White

  Chairman of the Board

   

  • 8:53 AM
  • 0 eprops
  • 2 comments