The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a front-page article today on Peter Enns getting suspended from Westminster. You can read it online here.
Sadly, the title of the article on the actual paper (not seen online) is “Still a Divide: Hand of man vs. word of God.” Obviously the whole point of Enns’ book was to move beyond such a dichotomy, not only in theory, but also in how we really understand what the Bible is and how it behaves.
Under the title, but above a picture of Enns, the following appears in bold, “A Bible scholar is accused of profaning Calvinist theology.”
Daniel Kirk, John White (from the board), John Frame, Art Boulet, Peter Lillback, and Enns, are quoted from and receive mention. David O’Reilly, a staff writer, wrote the article.
What are your thoughts?
July 13, 2008 at 11:40 am
I haven’t been doing well in church, GLW. I was doing fine, teaching classes, preaching sermons, doing series on apologetics, until I became critical of inerrancy. Then I instantly became homeless. Moving from church to church, denomination to denomination, every 1-2 years, trying to find a place where people aren’t always calling me Briggs and where they aren’t always trying to save me, especially after they get wind I’m not on board with inerrancy and (God forbid!) that I’m ok with evolution. [I think part of the reason they are so insistent is because I have a nice family with cute kids.]
We just left an Anglican Mission in America church after they went through a changing of the guards there. Now we’re trying a Wesleyan church outside Philly. It’s fundamentalist, but that part doesn’t bother me. It comes down to whether the people are going to treat us well and whether they accept my family for who we are in Christ (inerrancy or no). So far so good at this place, but it hasn’t been long at all (and I haven’t had occasion yet to talk about my dirty secret– I’m a Briggs).
July 13, 2008 at 10:56 am
Carlos
All kidding aside, what church do you attend? Is it in Philly?
July 13, 2008 at 10:47 am
There’s a Briggs Church down the street. I like to show up after they’re down rockin the house.
July 13, 2008 at 10:34 am
Carlos
That is a very Briggsian statement, but you knew that already. I am off to Church, by the way where do you worship?
July 13, 2008 at 10:21 am
You sound like an Amish person who still thinks of people in terms of Amish and English. Inside-outside, black and white, end of story, have a nice day.
July 13, 2008 at 9:55 am
Carlos
Ha! I knew it all along-you are a Briggsian! And so is the Foolish Tar heel, as is Boulet and so is Nick and don’t forget ….
July 13, 2008 at 9:50 am
Anyone who critiques Warfield is a Briggs. That smells fowl to me.
July 13, 2008 at 9:32 am
Carlos
That”s alot of pigeon poop!
July 13, 2008 at 9:27 am
We talked about this before, GLW. I actually think you’re right: there are certain similarities to be found in Briggs, the 1920s, 1970s, and today. But I don’t think you’ve quite put your finger on it by deciding to call everyone Briggs. Stand by your analogies if you want, it just sounds to me like you’re pigeonholing.
July 13, 2008 at 8:15 am
Carlos
I went over and read your take on my chapter. This will no doubt come as a big disappointment to you, but you sound like the late Johnnie Cochran,Jr. the lead lawyer for O.J. Simpson during his now infamous trial Cochran, you will remember was ‘sucessful’ in convincing the jury that O.J. was ‘innocent’ but everyone else new better. Very amusing, but your efforts were not at all convincing. I stand by my analogies.Adios.
July 13, 2008 at 12:54 am
Stupid posting on my fake blackberry cellphone…
Please excuse the multiple typos…
Pax Christi…Nick
July 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm
D.H. hart
As to your comment about diversity, it is of course possible you are right, but perhaps I could propose an alternate and more likely scenario. Wts east was already a diversely reformed institution, and several of the falculty who did their mdiv work elsewhere represent a bottleneck of a more narrowly reformed view, not a broader view. Having outside voice does not necessary equate a broader view. If al the outside views say the same thing, and all the inside views are varied, then outside veiws limit diversity. The nature of strawpolls demonstrates this clearly.
I mean you have to admit it is odd that the vast majority of those who argue that Enns has left the wts east trafdition did their mdivs at wts west, another instituion, or like trueman, have not done an mdiv at all. It is also odd that the majority of the faculty who argue Enns is within the wts east tradition did their mdivs there.
I know you have a personal opinion in this fight, but as an historian, isnt this an odd phenomenon? if you were studying a sudject which you had no personal stake in, what would you make of this historical fact in your professional opinon?
Paxton Christi…Nick
July 12, 2008 at 5:55 pm
The Inquirer’s religion reporter tried to contact more folks who are pushing for Enns’ ouster. No one would talk. So he did what he could – he saw that Frame had published a critical review and had had some connection to the Westminster world, and he contacted Frame for his thoughts. It isn’t Frame’s fault that no one else on the “fire Enns” side was giving quotes to the Inquirer.
July 12, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Didn’t Dr. Lillback himself make Frame central in this debate by quoting him extensively when making his case against Enns?
July 12, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I have two books I’ve read by Briggs: “The Authority of Holy Scripture” and “Biblical Study.” I also remember studying his commentary on Psalms for a class. As far as BBW goes, I’ve read that compilation having to do with the inspiration and authority of scripture. I’ve read a volume I have on biblical and theological studies that Trueman had assigned. And lastly I’ve read through portions of his Westminster Assembly compendium.
My remarks on your BBW and CAB polemic article are already posted on my site. Maybe we could carry on our conversation regarding that chapter of your book over there. Last time we went into your Warfield book here (the Silva article mainly) I think one of the adminstrators stepped in and told us to go fly our kites somewhere else.
July 12, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Carlos
Go ahead. I do hope, however you take time to read ( as I have)not only extensively from Warfield but Briggs as well.Based on what I read in your book your knowledge of BBW is, well, very limited. Have you read anything by Briggs?
July 12, 2008 at 12:57 pm
When I said that Professor Enns’ work does not fit the WTS tradition, I said that because it is my opinion, having read I&I, and being a WTS grad who did my biblical work under Frame, Gaffin, Dillard and Poythress, and having read and re-read the faculty symposium Inspiration and Inerrancy, that PE’s work takes a much different approach. None of my biblical studies profs nor the writings of Stonehouse, Machen, Young and Kline started with PE’s starting point: that our doctrine of Scripture is in need of change. All of them affirmed the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture as a starting point and went from there. I cannot speak for the faculty who affirm Enns’ work, but like Gaffin, I wonder on what basis they do so. Poythress is one faculty member who does not support PE’s work (as far as I can tell) and he did his MDiv at WTS. Of the critiques of I&I, I find myself in agreement with those of Frame and Gaffin, especially their points that Enns has created problems where none appear.
July 12, 2008 at 12:43 pm
FTH: you write, “Interestingly, much of the core of the 8 dissenters (Tipton, Jue, Trueman, Finnlayson, Lillback, etc.) did not receive their formative theological education (MDiv) from WTS Philadelphia. On the other hand, Enns and many of the 12 did. So, in many ways, it is easier to argue that the minority point of view, for all the rhetoric of returning to ‘pure’ WTS, has less claim to “true WTS” (whatever that is) than Enns and most of the 12.”
This could mean that WTS became inbred and parochial, and lost touch with a wider Reformed conversation. There are different ways of construing broad and narrow. Broad could mean being open to voices outside the Reformed camp. It could also mean listening to all the voices in the Reformed camp, including those that never taught at WTS.
July 12, 2008 at 10:40 am
Wouldn’t the thing to do that would be most consistent with the WTS model would be to admit that there are multiple legitimate perspectives to take on the spirit of WTS itself? Various perspectives on what WTS is have been operating independently and simultaneously within the various departments during the course of the institution’s history, haven’t they?
Then we would expect exactly what is happening: One commenter privileges the historical perspective, another the theological, another the biblical studies, all legitimate perspectives to take individually on what “the” WTS spirit is/should be.
Recent developments have us observing the historical and theological perspectives saying to another that: “You should look more like me: the language you use, the comparisons you make, the authorities you cite, and the conclusions you draw, should more look like me than they presently do.” With Enns’ book, there is the further (and sudden?) realization that the biblical studies perspective on the WTS model looks a whole lot like the historic enemy of WTS from the historic and theological perspective. (I am trying to think like an Enns critic from a multi-perspectival vantage.)
So maybe another helpful way to digest the controversy is not to focus on what is and has “always” been the true and original spirit of WTS, but what perspective the school should ultimately privilege and how might the school continue to handle the multiple perspectives that will present themselves to the faculty from within the several departments. Or even more fatefully, what if the perspectives are not ultimately going to be able to agree? What to do with the allegedly miscreant perspective?
July 12, 2008 at 9:55 am
Richard,
On the one hand, I appreciate your comment. On the other hand, you simply assert “The work of Professor Enns does not quite fit the Westminster model.” This is the point of debate. Even though you follow that sentence with “This is what the debate is about,” in view of your assertion you give the impression that “the debate” is about what to do in view of the fact of your assertion, not about the assertion itself. Without (hopefully) getting into that debate all over again here, I too will cite a list of names: Stonehouse, Dillard, Groves, Conn, etc. Enns fits squarely within such a WTS tradition in his work on Scripture.
Funny thing is, I came to WTS as a student very well read in Reformed (WTS especially!) Systematic and Historical Theology. For me, what Enns does in Biblical studies represents the outworking of his robust Reformed theology–i.e., he can approach the Bible the way he does in view of his WTS Reformed heritage.
Also, in view of the 12-8 faculty vote that found what Enns was doing to be in line with what WTS is all about, it somewhat out of line simply to assert “The work of Professor Enns does not quite fit the Westminster model.”
Interestingly, much of the core of the 8 dissenters (Tipton, Jue, Trueman, Finnlayson, Lillback, etc.) did not receive their formative theological education (MDiv) from WTS Philadelphia. On the other hand, Enns and many of the 12 did. So, in many ways, it is easier to argue that the minority point of view, for all the rhetoric of returning to ‘pure’ WTS, has less claim to “true WTS” (whatever that is) than Enns and most of the 12.
July 12, 2008 at 9:48 am
Gary, and it was odd that the story quoted Frame. The last time he had a dog in a Westminster fight was when he was mud wrestling with Horton over the value of historical theology.
July 12, 2008 at 8:52 am
GLW,
I read your article and enjoyed it very much, but I don’t think you’re being fair in what you try to do in that last section. I decided to critique that section on my site. Want to talk about it?
July 12, 2008 at 8:38 am
I second what Richard said. Interesting, isn’t it, that the paper quotes only from students who are pro Enns and not from those who are not. The article did correctly point out that the issue centers around WTS having ‘progressives’ as well as conservatives on the faculty. My, oh my, just what Machen invisioned when he left Princeton to help found WTS. You believe that and I have a sweet deal for you on some prime property in Florida.
July 11, 2008 at 9:29 pm
With all due respect to the person who made this last post, Westminster is not ruled by fear. There are differences of opinion, but fear is not at the base of the debate. This is a serious debate about the nature of Scripture and the traditional Westminster understanding of Scripture as developed by Machen, Young, Stonehouse and others. The work of Professor Enns does not quite fit the Westminster model. That is what the debate is about.
July 11, 2008 at 4:05 pm
WTS is controlled by fear.