Recently Bruce McCormack posted some reflections on the Christology of the HTFC position paper on Art Boulet’s blog. For those of you who do not know, McCormack is a recognized, top-of-his-field, senior scholar and professor at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Not surprisingly I have encountered (most offline and/or through email) some who agree with the HTFC’s critique of Enns who also take issue with McCormack’s piece. Also, not surprisingly, most of these people I encounter do not offer ANY interaction and critique of McCormack’s arguments and historical points. Rather, they protest that “he is a Barthian” or “he rejects doctrine X and doctrine Y of the Reformed Tradition” and thus we need not listen to his historical-theological critique of the HTFC. R. Scott Clark’s post stands as a slight exception in that he attempts to engage McCormack on some historical-theological grounds (see McCormack’s response). Nevertheless, Clark frames his post in rhetoric of incredulity that a Princeton Seminary professor would dare to “lecture” Westminster Seminary/ies professors on points of Reformed Historical-Theology. So, again, the logic in most of these offline and un-blogged (frequently overly bold) critiques of McCormack seems to be that since McCormack is a Barthian, we do not need to listen to him on points of Reformed Historical-Theology.
It is at this point that some basics of hermeneutics and logic serve us. How exactly does McCormack being a Barthian have any relation to his Historical-Theological critique of the HTFC? This connection is usually left unstated. If this is an issue of McCormack’s personal spirituality, I consider that irrelevant to the discussion. The relevance it might have is if McCormack is attempting to re-write Reformed Historical-Theology in some way to support his personal religious or scholarly views. In this case, one must engage his historical-theological points and show how he has done so. Simply asserting “he is a Barthian” does not constitute a critique.
The other possible relevance McCormack’s personal theological views seem to have in this ‘argument’ against him stems from a basic hermeneutical fallacy. It appears to be assumed that since McCormack rejects some part of Reformed Theology, he is not qualified to explain Reformed Historical-Theology. The idea seems to be that because he does not agree with it he cannot understand it.
It is difficult to stress just how misguided such a hermeneutical philosophy is. Whether someone accepts or rejects a position does not have a necessary bearing on whether or not he or she can explain or understand said position. Oversimplified, this is Philosophical-Hermeneutics 101. While such disagreement practically works out (frequently) in misrepresentation or misunderstanding, such are not necessary consequences of disagreement with or rejection of a position. To bring this close to home, if such a hermeneutical fallacy were true, how could the HTFC critique Peter Enns? Since they disagree with him, they could not be expected to understand him (and thus are not worth listening to for a critique). I imagine for most on this blog it is important that Paul correctly understood those he opposed in Galatia? But, if he could not understand them because he disagreed with them, how exactly could his criticism of them be worthwhile?
Before a presuppositionalist objects, allow me to point out that McCormack is not here talking about Scripture. I appreciate more (but do not necessarily agree with) the presuppositional argument that rejecting the Bible’s authority and claims about itself hinders one’s ability to understand it academically. In this case the Van Tilian holds that the Bible being God’s Word entails its inerrancy and the logical-systematic-inerrant unity of its propositional teachings and writings. Thus disagreeing with it being God’s Word automatically sets up a faulty hermeneutic—e.g., one that could admit the possibility of “errors” or readings that do not cohere in a logical-systematic-inerrant way with other parts of the Bible.
McCormack is not, however, dealing with Scripture but with Historical-Theology. McCormack’s personal disagreement with points of Reformed Historical-Theology (if, in fact, he does so disagree) does not entail a historical-methodological approach that necessarily distorts his understanding of its historical development. Thus, simply asserting “he is a Barthian” or that “he rejects X and Y about Reformed Theology” does not constitute an argument against McCormack’s post. One must actually engage him on historical-theological grounds and show that he, in fact, did misrepresent or misunderstand Reformed Historical-Theology—and perhaps he did so because he rejects it (that is yet another argument). This remains the case even in view of the (Van Tilian, in our circles) point that all things have true significance only in relation to God. If one wants to charge that McCormack’s theology somehow denies the creator-creature distinction, he or she still must show how (in the details) this had a distorting effect on his understanding of Reformed Historical-Theology.
So, enough with the ridiculous critiques of McCormack’s post “because he is a Barthian” or “because he rejects X and Y about Reformed Theology.” These are not arguments. Should they be set forward as arguments, they rely upon a basic hermeneutical fallacy. It is fine to disagree with McCormack’s Historical-Theological argument. But, one must do so by engaging him on his historical and Historical-Theological points. Also, it would be nice if such disagreements with McCormack could start being voiced more on the relevant blogs and less in bold emails and/or private conversation.
Just for fun, perhaps we can note a parallel between these ‘critiques’ of McCormack and the ‘critiques’ of Enns—frequently by the same people. Most of Enns’ boldest critics (the HTFC paper certainly included) time and again refuse to engage his actual historical and Biblical points. Continuing to critique him on the level of his hermeneutic denying the Divine author lacks validity. The whole discussion swirls around what it means that (the hermeneutical implications of) Scripture has a Divine author when it comes to reading the historically-contingent human writings—and allowing the Bible itself (in what it “says” and how it behaves) to inform our understanding of what we expect God’s Word to be. In order to do this, actual discussion needs to happen about the historical and Biblical points Enns makes. Yet, frequently those most vocally opposed to him expend most of their energy avoiding such actual discussion and engagements of his historical and Biblical points.
See Art Boulet’s recent response to Clark and others ‘critiquing’ McCormack “because he is a Barthian,” etc.
May 27, 2008 at 11:24 am
JD
My bad- I thought you were a student at WTS. Email me and I will attach a copy of my chapter and send it to you. I know something about being a poor grad student. Occcum-don’t even ask.
May 27, 2008 at 11:18 am
GLW:
FYI, I’m no longer a WTS student: I’m a grad student at Columbia, so getting to WTS is a bit difficult, and my stipend is pretty good, but I have to limit my expenses to my discipline (for now at least).
I got your joke
May 27, 2008 at 9:51 am
My, oh my, but Occcum, you are a bit cheeky as the British would say.
May 27, 2008 at 9:47 am
You theological infants sound like little spoiled children fighting over the swings. Here are the facts and conclusions:
1) Enns I&I is right and it is silly to have this silly conversation.
2) McCormack has just kicked WTS’s ass in doing solid historical theology. So what if he is Barthian. I’m sure Barth is a far better theologian than all of WTS’s theologians. I don’t see or hear about others studying Van Til, Frame or the Gaffer. Barth rocks and the WTS is jealous.
3) PTS is now the jewell of Theological education in the USA. Probably the best seminary in the world.
By the way, Johnson, Hart and all you wet behind the ears people. Grow up and read a book. ok.
May 27, 2008 at 9:44 am
GLW, sometimes joking doesn’t come across very clearly in cyberspace. Also, there have been enough shots taken at all the participants in these conversations that our senses of humor may not be as healthy as they used to be. But if you weren’t jabbing at JD, then fine, no harm done.
May 27, 2008 at 9:38 am
Guys, the remark wasn’t designed to be mean-spirited- it was a playful jab- ‘why you cheap lazy bum go buy a copy of my book!’ No sense of humor.
May 27, 2008 at 9:04 am
Darryl,
Your “hypothetical” question isn’t hypothetical, and you know it. And Enns has already answered that question numerous times. If you search the archives on Mark Traphagen’s blog, you can probably find the exchange with a student a couple of years ago, where Enns (or Mark, i can’t remember) answers this question.
GLW, after reading your comment #17, i assume you don’t know JD at all…otherwise you’d know how ridiculous it is to call him lazy. And he can’t just pop over to the WTS library. He doesn’t live in Philadelphia.
As Stephen said, let’s steer this discussion back toward the actual content of his post.
May 27, 2008 at 8:50 am
Darryl,
I am not impressed by your question about a mainstream Reformed person worshipping at a Nazarene church! Is “pure doctrine” so important that a person cannot worship at a church (still evangelical!) that is part of the community in which his family lives–for the sake of his family and kids!? I personally find Christ-centered and encountering community at an already evangelical church MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than traveling to a church with “pure doctrine” far away from where one lives. I consider myself a Reformed person and I WOULD CERTAINLY worship at a Nazarene church if that was the best option for myself and my family in the community where we live–I would choose that 100% of the time over commuting outside of our community for a church with supposedly “pure doctrine.”
GWL, it would be nice if you knew something about JD before calling him “lazy and cheap.” He does not live near the WTS library. He is a doctoral student in an Ivy League Classics department in a city hours from the WTS library. So, again, not only does he live far from the WTS library, but he also (as a doctoral student) would like to save money and not purchase a book if there is a chance the editor would be courteous enough to email a PDF of a relevant essay—especially when said editor has personally requested him (JD) to read the essay! Many of us on the conn-blog along with some people we know who publish things do so share electronic versions of our writings with each other–without calling the others “lazy and cheap.”
GWL or Darryl, would either of you care to address the actual substance and content of my post?
Ok, off to work… I hope we all serve well this week where the Lord has put us.
May 27, 2008 at 7:26 am
JD
You are lazy and cheap! Get yourself over to the library at WTS- there is a copy floating around there.
May 26, 2008 at 9:53 pm
JD: The Westminster Confession has bearing on Enns’ statement (? book) because he teaches at a school where subscribing the Westminster Standards is required for appointment. Why do you think that a Reformed creed has no bearing on what Enns does or teaches? How in the world would you know if he were “mainstream” Reformed if you didn’t have some reference to a Reformed creed?
Because Enns teaches at WTS and is an elder in the PCA, I’d also expect a work of theology or biblical studies by him to have some Reformed flavor. Can you explain why the folks who seem most eager to defend the Reformed faith don’t seem to find evidence of Reformedness in I&I?
Just a hypethetical question while I have you: would a mainstream Reformed person worship at a Nazarene church?
As for tradition, I have repeatedly invoked Alisdair McIntyre’s rendering (a Roman Catholic Marxist — is that avant guarde enough for an Old School Presbyterian?). It’s not a matter of merely repeating. But creativity within a tradition, as T. S. Eliot observed, requires being able to connect the dots. So you didn’t mention Machen explicitly, but you’re talking about a WTS professor. Machen is implicit. So can you connect the dots between Machen and Enns?
May 26, 2008 at 3:43 pm
GLW,
I do not own your book and have not read the chapter. Would you be willing to email me a copy of the chapter to peruse for my personal use? If so, email to thrdjohn13-at-yahoo-dot-com.
If not, why don’t you outline the points that are relevant to our discussion here–I doubt many of us (if any) will have your book.
May 26, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Darryl,
(1) You’re twisting my comment. I never mentioned Machen. FYI, You could also make the case that folks that don’t teach at confessional institutions could have a healthy sense of the inherent limitations of confessionalism: for instance, being blinded to worthwhile improvements by unwarranted fidelity to a tradition.
(2) Moreover, you didn’t answer my questions: (a) You have to justify why you think a reformed creed has anything to say about Enns’ statement, and why it doesn’t overstep that creed’s intended utility in drawing your conclusion (my contention is that you’re overreading your own confessions); and (b) in what way the view of provisionality presumed in your own Book of Church Order (which explicitly permits changing your confession and prescribes a way for acquiring such changes) differs substantially from Enns’ articulation of theological provisionality.
(3) I get the impression that for you, being traditional amounts to saying things certain select people have said before and not saying anything substantially new or different. That’s an unnecessarily restrictive definition of what a tradition is. Traditions are always inherently constructs that you and I ourselves impose based on decisions we make about continuities, discontinuities, and relationships between people and ideas. And just because certain people might agree that they want their tradition to have boundaries and agree on what they should be doesn’t make that tradition any more objective. It’s still subjective.
As for Enns, last I knew his ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology, and apologetics views were all mainstream reformed. As for his doctrine of scripture, propositionally I don’t see him substantially different from Bavinck, Silva, and others, even if they read certain passages differently (e.g. Gen 1-2 vis Silva). On this score, it is difficult for anyone to call Peter Enns outside the reformed tradition—that’s ridiculous.
On the issue of provisionality, the bulk of the tradition (at least as I know it) has always believed that though we believe we’re certain about many things, so far as we’re still sinners and on this side of the resurrection, even our most certain theological concepts are bound to have errors in them, and at least in that sense are by definition provisional. For instance, we may be certain that God is triune, but what exactly that means and how exactly we choose to explain it are bound to contain errors. That’s why the PCA and the OPC in their books of church order contain clauses about changing their doctrinal standards. That’s why Calvin started with the noetic effects of sin in his Institutes, as does Dick Gaffin in ST101. That’s why Calvin routinely revised his work. So, on that score I don’t see Enns’ quote outside the tradition either.
(4) You mentioned 2TJ off limits. Enns has been accused by Lane Tipton et al for “infelicitous use of contextual sources, etc.” (a pathetic criticism which makes one wonder whether Lane is at all current with NT and OT studies of the last century). Yet nobody is talking about John Lightfoot. Lightfoot was (a) a fantastic NT scholar, (b) a Westminster Divine, and (c) wrote _A Commentary on the New Testament According to the Talmud and Hebraica_. Now, by the standards of contemporary Jewish studies that commentary was a disaster (beyond infelicitous). Nevertheless, it was truly exceptional because it was the first time anybody had ever really tried to contextualize the NT with available ancient Jewish material; and in many respects, the work of WD Davies, EP Sanders, et al is a foot note to his efforts. And yet nobody back then thought less of Davies: nobody accused him of being unreformed or standing outside the tradition. Rather, he was recognized by most for using his talents to interpret very difficult documents which could shed light on the NT. If Enns, who makes incomparably better use of ancient materials, is considered outside the tradition for his use of them, then why not Lightfoot?
May 26, 2008 at 11:46 am
JD and CB
I addressed much of this in my chapter in the Warfield that I mentioned earlier. Have either of you read Machen’s ‘ Christianity and Liberalism’ lately?
May 26, 2008 at 9:59 am
Mr. Bovell, http://www.saveourseminary.com says — so it must be true — that Enns is carrying on the WTS tradition of combinging first rate scholarship with a commitment to “historic traditions.” I assume that means that Warfield, Machen, and Stonehouse were interacting with the scientific and historical discoveries of their day, while also maintaining and defending the Reformed faith. I also know, having worked on the period, that they did this.
So the answer to your question, is yes, they conducted their scholarship “under the auspices of ‘the Reformed faith’” as you put it. Better, they conducted their studies while also bound by the vows they made to their seminary and church. They also believed — this was the entire point of Machen’s career in the church controversies of the 1920s and 1930s — that if they could not pursue their work as scholars and as Reformed churchmen, that if their scholarship was at odds with their faith, they would have to give up their church and seminary duties. In other words, they knew that there were tensions between the academic world and the faith of the church — how could they not? They also knew that the church was more trustworthy (no that doesn’t mean infallible to the provisionalists out there) than the academy. So they tried to work out harmonies as much as possible. But statements like Machen’s were as much a a part of their work as efforts to conduct first-rate scholarship.
Why is it, then. that statement’s like Machen’s are so hard to find among today’s “progressive” evangelical or Reformed biblical scholars? When pondering an answer, please remember that Machen was actually considered even by liberals to be a first-rate scholar, even smart.
May 25, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Darryl:
That’s a very interesting condition you append to the end of your last comment. Would Warfield, Machen and Stonehouse be interested in interacting with what was happening in NT studies regarding Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism?
Are you saying that these guys would conduct their NT scholarship exclusively under the auspices of “the Reformed faith”? Or are you saying that you know in advance that AFTER looking at the relevant advances in NT studies that these guys would still affirm what can be confidently be identified as the Old Westminster stance?
May 25, 2008 at 4:52 pm
JD: happy Lord’s Day greetings to you also. You’re right, btw, about not needing to be at a confessional institution to know how it works. The idea of confessionalism seems lost on lots of people who work for or attend a confessional institution.
Let me see if I get this straight. You think Enns in the quotation I reproduced is saying nothing different from this by Machen?
“There are those who think that the Bible contains a mere record of human seeking after God and that its teachings are a mass of contradiction which can never be resolved. But to that number of persons we do not belong. We believe for our part that God has spoken to us in his Word, and that he has given us not merely theology, but a system of theology, a great logically consistent body of truth. That system of theology found in the Bible is the Reformed faith, the faith commonly called Calvinistic. It is sometimes referred to as a ‘man-made creed.’ But we do not regard it as such. We regard it, in accordance with our ordination pledge as ministers in the Presbyterian church, as the creed which God has taught us in his Word. . . . We rejoice in the approximations to that body of truth which other systems of theology contain; we rejoice in our Christian fellowship with other evangelical churches; . . . But we cannot consent to impoverish our message by setting forth less than what we find the Scriptures to contain; and we believe that we shall best serve our fellow Christians . . . if we set forth not some vague greatest common measure among various creeds, but that great historic faith that has come through Augustine and Calvin to our own Presbyterian church. Glorious is the heritage of the Reformed faith.”
I don’t see a resemblance. If you could explain how Enns is in the trajectory of Machen’s and Old Westminster’s affirmation of the Reformed faith, I’d be grateful. (No fair appealing to Second Temple Judaism.)
May 25, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Darryl and GLW: you’re both being ridiculous and unfair.
Darryl, you don’t need to be at a confessional institution to know how confessionalism works; and just because you’re now at a non-confessional institution doesn’t mean you haven’t been in one. Furthermore, can you explain how a reformed confession would have bearing on Enns’ statement? I have a hard time imagining how using a confession for this purpose–particularly the WCF, limited as it is–doesn’t overstep propriety. That’s beyond it’s scope, apart from whether you disagree w/ Enns or not.
GLW: As you know, there are different versions of “subscription”: literal, good faith, system, etc. Personally, I only think the first makes any sense, nevertheless the others exist, and “system” has been in place since the Barker days. You also know that “system” is usually pretty loose: it’s easy for someone to ex animo subscribe to a system but not to the whole document’s literal reading. I have no problem seeing how Enns could fit into that category (though, I actually think on scripture he’s fine w/ a literal reading).
For both of you on provisionality: Do you really think that Calvin didn’t think his theology was provisional? Or more importantly, does not the OPC’s BCO 32.3 prescription for amending the WCF & Cs necessarily presume its theology is in some sense provisional (or the PCA’s BoCo 26.3)? How is Enns saying anything substantively different from what your denomination teaches?
May 25, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Kent, might you concede that Machen and the theologians at Old Princeton did not see theology as provisional? You and I can debate the provisionality of our knowledge of God all we want and we would need to define some terms for the discussion. But at a school requiring subscription to the Westminster Standards ex animo as the system of doctrine taught in the Bible, can you at least see how the quotation at Enns might raise eyebrows. You may think WTS wrong to require subscription. But that’s a different matter.
May 25, 2008 at 9:21 am
Kent
For the sake of perspective-you personally do not have any remote confessionally loyalities, do you? Neither does the institution that you teach at, does it? Such a concept is as foreign to you as the life style of the Amish.
May 24, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Darryl,
I have to say, the quotation from Enns strikes me as so obviously correct that there can be only one reasonable conclusion: if HTFC disagrees with it, then the HTFC either doesn’t understand its tradition OR the tradition itself should be shelved.
Any tradition that fideistically excludes questions about the tradition itself is an unhealthy tradition.
May 24, 2008 at 10:53 am
Justin: Please explain how the following quotation from I&I stands within the Reformed tradition or allows someone like either McCormack or the HTFC to evaluate the other side on the basis of the Reformed creeds.
“Because our theologies are necessarily limited and provisional, the church today must be open to how other Christians from other cultures read Scripture and live it out in their daily lives. In my own Christian experience I have found myself in places where I no longer represented the dominant Western culture, either through travel or interacting with international students. These kinds of experiences remind me that some issues have many sides, which then prompts me to examine how my own cultural context influences me to see some things but not others. Christians truly can and must learn from each other . . . . That we are bound by time and place is not a sorry state of affairs that we simply have to put up with until we can learn to rise above it. The incarnational analogy helps us to see it differently; diverse expressions of God’s one, but multidimensional, gospel are precisely what he wanted.” [169]
May 24, 2008 at 10:46 am
Let me see if I’ve got this:
1. Enns writes a book on Scripture, claiming (both in the book and in accompanying articles/clarifications/lectures with lots of footnotes) to stand within a Reformed tradition of doing what he’s doing
2. HTFC seeks to “judge him from within his tradition”
3. HFC says “HTFC doesn’t understand their tradition as well as they claim to…OR the Bible…and they misread Enns to the point of inserting words that weren’t in his book”
4. McCormack says, “HTFC doesn’t understand their tradition as well as they claim to”
5. Dr. Hart (in an amazing display of rhetorical judo) says: “really, McCormack and the HTFC are on the same side, because they both appeal to authoritative traditions”
This is getting weirder by the day.
May 24, 2008 at 8:53 am
Mr. Young: Wouldn’t your point be stronger if Prof. Enns and his supporters actually agreed with McCormack on Reformed Christology and the authority of the Reformed confessions (as expressions of Reformed orthodoxy)? It may be interesting that WTS and PTS theologians disagree on Reformed orthodoxy — that would hardly be surprising given 1929 and all that. But what you and others who appeal to McCormack in defense of I&I don’t seem to acknowledge is that the book’s remarks about the situatedness and provisionality of theology makes McCormack’s argument pointless. The standard for I&I seems to be the individual interpreter reading the Bible and hearing God speak in the moment, in the situation, while listening to all traditions and learning from them. The standard is clearly not one of the interpreter standing within a theological tradition and being judged by it. (If that were the standard, you could hardly object to what HTFC is doing.)
For that reason, McCormack is more on the HTFC’s side than he is on Enns’. He and HTFC are holding biblical scholars and theologians accountable to a theological tradition. I&I only seems to want to hold biblical scholars and theologians accountable to the Bible.
May 23, 2008 at 9:21 pm
No, my post wasn’t framed in a rhetoric of incredulity. My post was framed in a rhetoric of irony. If you’ll read the comments I explained repeatedly that I find it ironic that a mainline Presbyterian is advocating a kind of confessionalism that many NAPARCers profess to abhor. That was the point.
May 23, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Here’s a thought-Enns can go over and teach at Princeton along side of McCormack. Neither one of them seems to be overly fond of Van Til.