Odds and Enns

I wonder if the specter of Peter Enns isn’t hovering in the background of the current flap over Mike Licona. Enns also used hermeneutics and comparative literature to justify his position. And that’s a legitimate concern.

The Enns affair operated on basically two levels. At one level this was an internal affair involving WTS. At that level, the issue wasn’t so much whether Enns was right or wrong, but whether his vision was compatible with the vision of the institution that employed him. It was a question of institutional identity, integrity and discipline. Did he share the same aims of the faculty, administration, board, and alumni. He was supported by the OT dept., but many felt that was the source of the problem.

So at that level it wasn’t a question of proving him wrong, but whether he fit into the WTS culture.

But, of course, there was also the substantive issue. Is he right?

As a result, that issue was mainly taken up and prosecuted by outsiders. Even if, say, his position was an odds with the traditions of Westminster seminary or what have you, that doesn’t settle the substantive question of whether or not he was right. And at the end of the day, that’s what counts.

Enns argued for his position. That needed to be argued down. And that was done by scholars like G.K. Beale, D. A. Carson, John Currid, John Frame, and Bruce Waltke.

There was more than could have been said by way of rebuttal. Once he was fired, his scholarly opponents moved on to their own projects, and bloggers took up the rear.

But he needed to be challenged on his own grounds. It would be inadequate just to quote ETS or ICBI documents.