Kent: Can we agree that I&I made no claims about the WCF or its need for revision? If we do agree, then why would the people evaluating I&I need to consider whether the WCF is wrong? But the very assertion that they should implies a tension between I&I and the confession. That’s why I said your own comments suggest Enns is outside the confession: you read I&I and immediately think we either need to revise the confession or we need to consider that the Confession is wrong. I don’t see any other way of regarding your understanding of the relation between I&I and the WCF.

Now, having said that I&I says nothing about the confession or its need for revision, I&I does make claims about the doctrine of Scripture, a subject also addressed by the WCF. So for a community of interpretation supposedly bound by the confession to evaluate I&I on the basis of that bond without considering whether the basis of the bond is invalid or wrong is hardly inadequate. Do you really evaluate faculty at Eastern on the basis of their commitment to justice and then ask if the commitment to justice is wrong? Isn’t the WCF a given at WCF as much as justice is at Eastern? Outsiders may question those commitments, but can insiders and still be inside?

CB, I was only taking note of one line of defense of I&I. Early on when critics accused I&I of not sufficiently dealing with the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, the response from the book’s supporters was the Enns was not writing for a Reformed audience but for evangelicals. The point seemed to be that critics were expecting too much of the book. Now you seem to think that the book is written as much for Reformed as it is for evangelicals. Fine. I just wish the book’s defenders could keep their story straight.

Thanks to all for concerns for my bite. I’m left wondering whether spiders are part of God’s eternal decree.

You have my sympathy vote and my prayers for a speedy recovery. Be careful with the spider bite diagnosis (unless you actually saw the spider bite you). From my amateur entomology reading, I’ve read that this diagnosis is often false. You can read about it at http://spiders.ucr.edu/myth.html (with respect to the brown recluse). Of course, I don’t expect you to share my rather odd interests, but sometimes the false diagnosis keeps the doctor from a correct one. This happened to a friend of mine where the doctors missed Lyme disease because they wrongly diagnosed a sore as a hobo spider bite.

To the issue, I believe it would move things along if we could identify specific areas where Enns is (allegedly) outside of the WCF.

“You yourself, then, judge, I&I to be if not outside at least against the WCF.”

I don’t know how you got that impression since I plainly said that I judge I&I to be within the bounds of the WCF. My point was that those who questioned the fit of Enns should have engaged his work at the points where they thougth him amiss rather than simply quote the confession at him.

“You also don’t seem to consider that those who take vows to a confession, both as professors and church officers, suffer the circumstances of being under surveillance for our views.”

This is a red herring, since I have no problem with the idea that confessions matter and that those vowing to keep them can be judged outside of them. But inherent in the process of making that sort of judgment is the responsibility of the respective ecclesial body (or in the case of WTS, the para-ecclesial body) to consider the possibilty tht the confession is wrong. As I said, I don’t believe Pete was outside of the confession. But for those who so judged him, they should have actually engaged him at those points where they questioned his WCF fit. As far as I can tell, that simply wasn’t done.

It would seem to me that Enns knew his book would be subject to review: that’s presumably why he published articles in WTJ and JETS before publishing the book. It’s not a matter of getting reviewed by those he’s in communion with, but how he’s been subject to the review that’s at issue: it’s been pretty aggressive to say the least. Plus, the faculty reviewed the book and said it passed denominational criteria. THat’s the kind of academic review that I think Kent and others expected and it’s just being ignored.

Of course, you don’t have to concede Kent’s points if you honsetly disagree, but I’ve tried to present a collective set of answers to your questions and don’t believe you are returning the favor.

You also don’t seem to consider that those who take vows to a confession, both as professors and church officers, suffer the circumstances of being under surveillance for our views. When we take vows to other officers, we inherently subject our work to their review. This is a significant matter of Presbyterian ecclesiology. It’s also basic to being in communion with other believers. You may think such vows and implied obligations are wrong. But those were the rules in place when faculty at WTS accepted the invitation to join the faculty.

“Is there anything in particular in I&I that calls for a revision of WCF?”

Not in my opinion, nor in the opinion of the majority of WTS fculty. But those who see a conflict between I&I and WCF should have purused the evidence adduced in the book rather than simply fideistically judge it from within the confession itself.

If ever a serious interrogation of the WCF should take place, it is precisely under the conditions created at WTS by Pete’s book and by the strong support that it garnered among WTS faculty.

The original post was about the tendency to judge others without really considering their arguments. In my opinion, there’s no question that Pete’s critics failed to seriously consider whether Pete’s theses were correct; the only question they asked was, “Is Pete within the confession?”, when they should have been asking, “Is or confession wrong?”

Darryl: you, too, are taking this approach. You are comfortable talking about whether the WTS board can do what it has done (your answer is Yes), and whether Pete’s views fit into your interpretation of the WCF (your answer is No).

Where’s the engagement with Pete’s biblical evidence? It is not an accident that the biblical scholars and theologians at WTS tend to disagree. One group’s approach is grounded in the discourse of the ancient biblical text itself, the other is grounded in a 17th century theological statement.