peter enns, westminster seminary, and graffiti (updated)
There has been a lot of noise on the web over the past few days regarding the suspension of Dr. Peter Enns, tenured Professor of Old Testament and Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Christianity Today has put a brief post about the issue on their blog.
For those unfamiliar with Dr. Enns, his book, and some of the literature available online, Brandon Withrow, who is a graduate of Westminster and was actually the first person I heard lecture at Westminster in my Ancient Church course back in the fall of 2005, has kindly collected a list of links.
There are a few things that must be clarified regarding the situation. Some blogs have overstated the actual facts of the situation. Some have even gone so far as to praise the death of Ray Dillard in their journey towards discrediting Peter Enns (and then follow up with a post defending his ungodly statements!). Clarity and truth must be valued during all situations, especially a situation like this where many different versions of the story are fluttering around the internet.
So, for the sake of both clarity and truth, here are the facts of the situation:
1) The only vote regarding the orthodoxy of Peter Enns to this point in history was the December vote of the faculty. This resulted in a 12-8 vote in favor of Peter Enns and his orthodoxy. Anyone who claims that the suspension of Peter Enns was a result of a vote on his orthodoxy is functioning outside of the known facts of the situation. We must stick to the facts.
2) What the vote of the Board of Westminster concerned, according to the public statement made by Jack White and released this past Thursday, 27 March 2008 (quoted in full in my previous post), was clarified in this statement: “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’s book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament” (emphasis and link added). As presented to the public by the Board of Westminster, the meeting concerned the disunity among the faculty, not the particulars of Dr. Enns’s work. Anyone who claims that the vote of the Board of Westminster was regarding the confessional standing of Dr. Enns is operating outside of the actual facts as presented by the Board of Westminster. We must stick to the facts.
3) It is important to clarify what “heterodoxy” means within the context of the current discussions, especially for those onlookers who are not part of the Reformed, confessional world. Within the evangelical Christian world at large, the term “heterodoxy” concerns the divergence from either the core tenets of the Christian faith (virgin birth, Trinity, bodily resurrection, etc.) or from the Church’s ancient Creeds (The Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, Chalcedonian Creed). Within the world of Reformed Confessionalism, “heterodoxy” concerns the divergence from the Westminster Confession of Faith, not the core tenets of the Christian faith or the Church’s ancient Creeds. This is important to keep in mind as some are claiming that Pete’s views are “heterodox” by (falsely) equating him with known liberals such as Charles Briggs. The argument brewing does not concern whether Peter Enns’ work is within the bounds of Christianity. All would agree that it is (and if they don’t, then my mind does not have a paradigm for such a person…”extremely far right and narrow” is the closest category I have, which would be a compliment to such a person). The argument that has been brewing concerns whether Peter Enns’s work is within the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is important to keep in mind and to clarify for all of those who are not part of the world of Reformed, confessional Christianity.
***(due to the Westminster website being down this afternoon, I was unable to include the following point)***
4) From the message from the board on the Westminster website it is clearly stated that “the ongoing disunity in the WTS faculty and community, the desire to ensure Professor Enns be given due process, and the underlying theological controversy necessitated the Board’s March 26 actions.” Yet again, from official communication from the Board of Westminster, the orthodoxy of Peter Enns is not commented upon. Anyone who is stating that the cause of Peter Enns’s suspension is that he was found to be outside of the Westminster Confession of Faith is drawing their own, factually unsubstantiated conclusions regarding the situation. Yet again, we must stick to the facts.
More should come to light this Tuesday during a special presentation to be made by the Chairman of the Board, the Secretary of the Board, and the President of Westminster Theological Seminary.
One has to wonder how much graffiti is left…
Filed under: Peter Enns, WTS, Welcome to the Machine | Tagged: Christianity, Faith, Peter Enns, Religion, Westminster Theological Seminary
Thanks, Art, for your civil, clarifying remarks to set the record straight. I particularly appreciate your taking the time to spell out the special meaning of “heterodoxy” when it is applied within a reformed confessional context.
“…you have to start erasing somewhere.”
The implications of the current affairs at WTS are far reaching in the sense that a precedent of sorts could be established. For either good or bad. If this all has to do with ones theological matrix, or a traditions theological matrix and functioning within the boundaries thereof to the consideration of the removal of a class “A” scholar then this is a most unique time for the working out of what has “emerged” in most recent theological scholarship.
The posture toward theology; the suggestive attitudes and models presented by thinkers like John Franke and Roger Olson and those who subscribe to similar if not identical form have a place now, at WTS to bring this to bear upon. I sincerely hope that how we view and use our theological constructs fall under submission to the Truth.
I do not know what exactly is the issue going on here concerning the confession and Enn’s work. But again, if this is the issue, “The argument that has been brewing concerns whether Peter Enns’s work is within the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith” then, what is really at issue is how much do our theological grids are tacitly subservient to a false notion of “arrived truth” and who’s in and who’s out.
A precedent awaits. It may not be ‘established’ in the victorious sense, but a precedent waits in the form of the voice of a growing majority.
CORRECTION: My comment should read…
“what is really at issue is how much do our theological grids fall tacitly subservient to a false notion of “arrived truth” and who’s in and who’s out.”
As someone who hasn’t really been following the situation too closely, other than praying for grace and discernment whenever I see you mention it on your blog, this post has been enlightening. Thanks, Art.
Thank you for sticking to the facts. It is quite helpful for the body of Christ.
Regarding point four (desire to ensure due process for Dr. Enns) and the 12-8 vote in favor of Dr. Enns confessional fidelity, do you think there is a chance that Dr. Enns will be reinstated?
Just want to help you get the facts straight. The original vote by the board, to call a special meeting, was as you pointed out in #2 to address the disunity of the faculty, but the phrase following “regarding the theological issues related to Dr. Enns book,Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament” was deleted from the motion before the motion was approved. Mr. Whites report of the action of the Board reinserts this portion deleted before the vote of the Board. (What about Roberts Rules there??) In other words the board when they voted to have this meeting were willing to consider (at least some of them) other possible sources for disunity, but in the end the administration laid the current disunity heavily on the back of Dr. Enns and His book. But if you ask any faculty member (see Clair Davis memoirs,or Tremper Longman on Save Our Seminary) the disunity predates Enns publication and is perpetuated by failures of orthopraxy.
Perhaps someone can help me understand - if the stated reason for the suspension was the disunity amongst the faculty, why should it be Dr. Enns who suffers the consequences when it seems much of the “disunity” could have been avoided had the side who lost the faculty vote simply accepted the outcome instead of persisting in their attempts to overrule the majority?
I think that’s the question. Certainly gives the impression that some folks weren’t terribly interested in what the committee decided if it didn’t come to the conclusions they had in mind already.
Anonymous, your intention is in no way to help Art “get the facts straight” - He has the facts straight. Your willingness to criticize the board’s use of Robert’s Rules shows that fault-finding might be your cheif motive. When you say that “much of the disunity could have been avoided had the side who lost the faculty vote simply accepted the outcome instead of persisting in their attempts to overrule the majority..”, it shows that you either have first-hand knowledge of what went on behind closed doors, or you are content to speculate and pass judgement according to that speculation. Claiming that the majority was overruled is an example of not having your facts straight, as Art pointed out. Even if what you are saying is true, you would be better served to wait until after Tuesday’s meeting to share.
[...] Art calls bloggers to “stick to the facts.” He notes that, “Some blogs have overstated the actual facts of the situation. Some have even gone so far as to praise the death of Ray Dillard in their journey towards discrediting Peter Enns (and then follow up with a post defending his ungodly statements!).” [...]
Tony V just to clarify, I did not say that. There were two posts by two DIFFERENT anonymous bloggers. Check the board minutes calling the special meeting, the facts are on my side here. And could we let the God of TRUTH judge my motifs, not you.
motives, that is not motifs…sorry.
[...] III: In a round-up of his own, Calvin Park links to WTS student, Arthur Boulet’s post, where he presents the facts of the matter. Apparently, Enns’ suspension was not over his [...]
Art, I wonder what you think liberalism is. I think a lot of people would agree that there is a difference between Enns and Machen. I also don’t think that anyone would say that Pete went in the direction of trying to out conservative Machen. But I appreciate the reluctance to use the l-word. Still, if there is a movement away from a position, it could be to the right or to the left.
So what in your estimation would constitute liberalism? (If you care to comment.)
Daryl: I’m not too sure how this fits into the post and/or comments.
I’m pretty sure everyone defines liberalism as any person, theology, movement, etc. that is to the left of them or their understanding of pre-established norms.
I think you would have to clarify your question. I would consider some people conservative in some aspects and liberal in others.
I honestly don’t think the labels “liberal” and “conservative” really mean too much to my generation. I think they need to be further nuanced, explained, and particularized before they are helpful.
I would also be interested in hearing what Dr. Hart means by ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ (or ‘left’ and ‘right’). As it stands, I find such a one-dimensional approach to be unhelpful, but am open to hearing the description nuanced.
Yes, I’d agree that dichotomy of liberal or conservative is becoming much less useful.
Hey Art: But really can’t you backward contextualize what Daryl is asking. We often contextualize for our generation, why not do the same for the generation that went before us. What I mean is this, your answer was a bit Tony Jone-ish. (Who refuses to answer questions on truth because they have no meaning to him. I think what you are saying is true from the view point of our generation, but this does not negate the underlying question in Daryl’s post. What I mean to say is this: You know I think what he is asking, and will not answer because the question has no value to you.
It must be said that most theological debates are not taking place in a world of monolithic terminology, Nor do they only affect one generation. Should we then stifle the discussion because we don’t care for the question?
(I am not here commenting on the larger issue, but only making a point about my frustration with the current tendency to dismiss questions, because we do not like how they were phrased, or the categories to which they pertain)
Sorry about the Italics…I can not figure that crap out….I meant to italicize “him” in reference to T. Jones and “you” in reference to Art. It should also be noted if the above is crazy that I have a 102.6 degree temp…so if I am way off I blame that!
**Art’s edit**
Fixed that for you buddy
Hope you feel better!
**done edit***
D:
I definitely understand what you are saying.
In my response to Dr. Hart I didn’t brush off the question because I didn’t find it relevant to my context or paradigm of understanding.
Rather, I asked him to clarify what points he is referring to concerning the term “liberal.” This term is going to mean many, many different things depending on the context.
For instance, some may believe that anyone who is outside of a very narrow reading of the Westminster Confession of Faith is “liberal.” Others will think that anyone who is outside of the Westminster Confession of Faith is “liberal” as well, but they will hold to a broader reading.
Others will say that if you believe Gen 1-11 to be ‘myth’ then you are liberal. Others will say if you don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ then you are liberal.
But what happens when someone believes Gen 1-11 to be ‘myth’ yet also believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ? Would it be fair (or even true!) to classify them as ‘liberal’?
That is why nuance is needed.
Is Dr. Hart referring to a liberal view on Gen 1-11? A liberal view of the historicity of the monarchic period? A liberal view of the relationship between The Instruction of Amenemope and Proverbs? A liberal view of inerrancy? A liberal use of cream cheese on my bagel?
The point is: the particular topic under discussion needs to be stated. To blankly state that someone is “liberal” tells me absolutely nothing about them (except that their books are probably really interesting!). So how am I supposed to define it until the particular topic is discussed?
My last comment concerning the uselessness of the term in our current context is simply something I believe to be true. It was not meant to brush aside Dr. Hart’s comment. I first asked him for nuance, which is needed in these discussions.
Art, I only brought up the l-word because you did when you dismissed as a canard the idea that Enns might be a liberal like Charles Briggs. My reason for asking you what you understand liberalism to mean was to see what you might find objectionable about Briggs. Is it simply that he’s a liberal? Is it that his views on critical scholarship went too far? Is it that he denied the Princeton doctrine of inerrancy? Is it that he wanted to revise the Westminster Confession? Is it that he didn’t really see the point of being a Presbyterian the way that Warfield did?
All of those questions involve truths about the content of Briggs views. It also strikes me that in our conversations on line over the last half year, all of the truths implied in those questions about Briggs are ones that Enns’ supporters affirm in some manner — advocating critical scholarship, taking issue with inerrancy, wanting to revise the WCF, and not being entirely comfortable with the limits involved in confessional Presbyterianism. So the resemblance between Briggs and Enns/Enns’ supporters is stronger that you may think.
But the big issue that stands out for me in reading I&I is that Enns’ understanding of the theological enterprise as one that is provisional, conversational, never final, always culturally conditioned is precisely the same argument made by the Presbyterian liberals who wrote and signed the Auburn Affirmation. That was the sort of liberalism that WTS was founded to oppose. It would me more than ironic if those arguments found their way into the mix of legitimate questions at a school that had originally said they were illegitimate.
So the liberal question has more poignancy than your post suggests (at least to me).
I think the meeting today raised more questions than it answered. Though heterodoxy wasn’t the stated reason for the suspension, it appears to be the issue that’s causing the division in the faculty (at least that’s what it seemed like from what was stated “in the meeting).
How did the meeting go?
One of the basic problems I see w/the board’s suspension is that it is a suspension w/out a due process. Even if you grant Hart’s thesis that Enn’s is a modern day Briggs you have to admit that briggs was given his day in court. My understanding is that Pete was not even present when the board suspended him. I think thats why so many of his supporters feel like he was sandbagged.(or hit & run) The issue of Pete’s orthodoxy or being the cause of disunity at WTS dosen’t mean you don’t give him a fair chance to defend himself in front of the board.
The goal of a “confessional” seminary (which WTS claims it is now & as far I know Pete does not dispute) does not mean you do it w/backroom deals.
Well, it would be nice if you actually present the whole context than your “guess” RGL, especially when your comment questions the integrities of Godly men that leads WTS. Having sympathy Dr. Peter Enns is one thing, making character assassinations on fellow brothers in Christ without any prove of evidence is another.
If others want to know the explaination publicly given is that the Board arranged a time with Dr. Peter Enns and both sides mutually agreed on a date and time. However, when the board meets on that agreed date and time that Dr. Peter Enns informed them that he cannot make it because of “prior commitments.” The Board decided that they made a good faith offer for Dr. Peter Enns to defend himself, and he did not ask for an extension in a timely matter and so they decided to have the meeting without him.
Now, you can make your own judgments on whether or not the board did the right thing, but it sure doesn’t seem like the board were plotting to “sandbagged” Dr. Peter Enns.
Just noticed in revising for exams on 2 Chronicles that Dillard (Intro to 2 Chronicles) briefly mentions/uses the Incarnational Analogy with reference to scripture.
Did anyone bat an eyelid then with such terminology (cf. HTFC Report) ?